AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

The reason I think evil (or even chaotic mischief for that matter, which I think is an undervalued concept) has a difficult time is two sides of the same coin.

The status quo is "good". If all things on Amia were left to just settle, the underlying premise would be complete neutrality, which as others have stated, can be considered the same as "good" for the sake of conflict as they tend to lean toward good in time of strife.

This means that for a character to be "good", he need only stand around with his shiny spells and such in Cordor and wait... that's all, just wait, for something to crush. All the work is done by those trying to create the strife. All the "good" has to do is... wait and respond. Typically this happens in the matter of seconds and all work done by the "evil" is then over.

Based on this, the "evil" HAS to be the impetus of change in the world, lest it remain neutral/good. Therefore, all the work needs to be done by "evil". Sadly, you will find that people that are willing to: (a) play evil "intelligently", and (b) put in the effort required to do that, are the exception of the peeps that log-in to Amia on a daily basis, not the rule.

Well, considering we are set in 3.5 Faerun, and not Ravenloft, or 43 Faerun, or Greyhawk...

I thought we were set in 3.0 FR, with a mixture of 3.5 and home brewed stuff, ie the planar cosmology is different and the fact we have creatures like the shadow and snow elf.

I like to be the evil villain and that will often mean PvP. People have this sense of fairness OOC which, never would happen IC.

Evil people will pick on the weaker people. For instance, as a Ghaunadan, your job is to weed out the weak, so that the strong may flourish. I will try and always give them a way out of course and usually, it involves letting one of them go. They go get help of some epic mages or something and I get stomped on IC. More rarely they realise that there are often verbal ways out, if only the good PC would put pride out the way.

But that's the job of the evil villain. Our job is to present a problem to the PCs of good or neutral alignment, whether that's a mental challenge or physical one. Their job is to get out of the hellish predicament set before them. Overcoming evil doesn't have to end in PvP but to most players, that's their first instinct.

Yes Krytellan and Soundsofastream. I totally agree with both of you.

But Evil PCs can only do so much, after that you have to tap the DM faucet to get the kind of evil Amia craves. I haven't seen that happening but I'm sure it does to some extent. I'm of the mind that if I can notice it, everyone can. Conversely, if I don't notice it (considering the ridiculous hours I play every week) most people won't.

So how about we get a DM up there who's gonna give the good people something major to fret about? So they don't have to stand around waiting for us chaotic stupid PC goons to screw up and get pwned.

Geld Yaztran wrote:

It's the very idea that banites kill everything else, when the players of Banites themselves don't even do that...is exactly the kind of single track thought that keeps the server from ever reaching the full potential that it actually has, because those OOC thoughts always translate into IC paranoia and suspicion that kills the motivations for a LE character who attempts to manipulate.

For what it's worth, I *like* the idea of insidious, manipulative evil. (I also like in-your-face evil, and if there was just one kind, I would miss the other.) If you want to do that though, please meet us halfway: don't make it so that to play along we have to portray our characters as having zero skills of perception or pattern recognition.

Don't portray yourself as a fanatical cultist, if that's not how you want characters to react to you; there's a difference between simply being a follower and being a fanatic. Don't have tea in public with mass-murderers and devils, if you don't want to be viewed with suspicion. Have plausible excuses, and make some effort to maintain a respectable public image, or at least don't go around cultivating a deliberately negative public image.

I think a good example of how to approach someone despite their reputation was when the Church of Vhaeraun offered to assist the Eternal Order against the Black Caravan. Even though the Church of Vhaeraun was distrusted, the Eternal Order might have been desperate enough to deal with them. It passes the "can you imagine a real person considering accepting this?" test. (In real life, most people tend to avoid knowingly going into business with the mob, or letting serial-killers babysit their kids. But history is full of occasions where people allied with what they considered the lesser of two evils against a greater threat.)

StandingBehindYou wrote:

Geld Yaztran wrote:

It's the very idea that banites kill everything else, when the players of Banites themselves don't even do that...is exactly the kind of single track thought that keeps the server from ever reaching the full potential that it actually has, because those OOC thoughts always translate into IC paranoia and suspicion that kills the motivations for a LE character who attempts to manipulate.

For what it's worth, I *like* the idea of insidious, manipulative evil. (I also like in-your-face evil, and if there was just one kind, I would miss the other.) If you want to do that though, please meet us halfway: don't make it so that to play along we have to portray our characters as having zero skills of perception or pattern recognition.

Don't portray yourself as a fanatical cultist, if that's not how you want characters to react to you; there's a difference between simply being a follower and being a fanatic. Don't have tea in public with mass-murderers and devils, if you don't want to be viewed with suspicion. Have plausible excuses, and make some effort to maintain a respectable public image, or at least don't go around cultivating a deliberately negative public image.

I think a good example of how to approach someone despite their reputation was when the Church of Vhaeraun offered to assist the Eternal Order against the Black Caravan. Even though the Church of Vhaeraun was distrusted, the Eternal Order might have been desperate enough to deal with them. It passes the "can you imagine a real person considering accepting this?" test. (In real life, most people tend to avoid knowingly going into business with the mob, or letting serial-killers babysit their kids. But history is full of occasions where people allied with what they considered the lesser of two evils against a greater threat.)

Insidious, manipulative evil is good. Like the two Bhaalyn who got into the Church of Cyric (still feel bad about that :P ), or my half devil that made everyone she met sign infernal contracts, with very careful wording.

Yurell wrote:

StandingBehindYou wrote:

Geld Yaztran wrote:

It's the very idea that banites kill everything else, when the players of Banites themselves don't even do that...is exactly the kind of single track thought that keeps the server from ever reaching the full potential that it actually has, because those OOC thoughts always translate into IC paranoia and suspicion that kills the motivations for a LE character who attempts to manipulate.

For what it's worth, I *like* the idea of insidious, manipulative evil. (I also like in-your-face evil, and if there was just one kind, I would miss the other.) If you want to do that though, please meet us halfway: don't make it so that to play along we have to portray our characters as having zero skills of perception or pattern recognition.

Don't portray yourself as a fanatical cultist, if that's not how you want characters to react to you; there's a difference between simply being a follower and being a fanatic. Don't have tea in public with mass-murderers and devils, if you don't want to be viewed with suspicion. Have plausible excuses, and make some effort to maintain a respectable public image, or at least don't go around cultivating a deliberately negative public image.

I think a good example of how to approach someone despite their reputation was when the Church of Vhaeraun offered to assist the Eternal Order against the Black Caravan. Even though the Church of Vhaeraun was distrusted, the Eternal Order might have been desperate enough to deal with them. It passes the "can you imagine a real person considering accepting this?" test. (In real life, most people tend to avoid knowingly going into business with the mob, or letting serial-killers babysit their kids. But history is full of occasions where people allied with what they considered the lesser of two evils against a greater threat.)

Insidious, manipulative evil is good. Like the two Bhaalyn who got into the Church of Cyric (still feel bad about that

), or my half devil that made everyone she met sign infernal contracts, with very careful wording.

Manipulative, 'Plausible' evil is the sort that I will, happily and consistently, work with DMwise.

I, as a DM exercising the right to choose where I focus my plot-running efforts, refuse to run situations where the only reason Either party survives is to due "OOC Tweaking" (AKA; Blatant DM Metagaming). This goes for both Good and Evil. If you want to raid a city with brute force or try blow it up, and you're idiotic about it, chances are ICly you'd be hung or have your head on a pike and you'd be dead permanently.

Fortunately, it's much easier to stop Good Guys from making these mistakes than Bad Guys.

WonWon, all the Evils need is reasonably intelligent leaders who have greater ambitions then being able to blow stuff up, and it's also easy to deter them from risky half-cocked city raids.

I'm aware of that. However I'd like to think PCs could do that.

I'd rather not bring in an NPC Leader just to tell them how things are to be done so that ICly and OOCly things remain stable and plausible.

In some cases, unfortunately the power structures don't allow for the PCs to actually do so (unless you've got a PC amongst the dissenters who's ready to take some big risks).

Quote:

(unless you've got a PC amongst the dissenters who's ready to take some big risks).

If there isn't, one of them should BECOME it.

By having Rizzen publicly exposing his faith and position, I am the one taking huge risks.

I should get him more than I get Auron, though. >.<

What about NPC troops to help? Like a Half Orc getting the orc tribe in the hills to raid Bendir? Just an example but it would be cool

The Incognitos wrote:

What about NPC troops to help? Like a Half Orc getting the orc tribe in the hills to raid Bendir? Just an example but it would be cool

I tried this a while ago.

The answer I got was that the DMs are not too keen of giving an army to a PC.

But it might be a different case, as mine was suggesting swapping the Baenre at Underport for Jaelre.

We'll never ever ever get a PC an army to lead.

However.

There's often opportunities for a PC to influence/instigate an NPC army to do something. IE. An Orc PC is never going to have an orc tribe of NPCs ;but nothing's stopping him from attempting to spur the orc chief of an NPC tribe into doing something.

krytellan wrote:

The reason I think evil (or even chaotic mischief for that matter, which I think is an undervalued concept) has a difficult time is two sides of the same coin.

The status quo is "good". If all things on Amia were left to just settle, the underlying premise would be complete neutrality, which as others have stated, can be considered the same as "good" for the sake of conflict as they tend to lean toward good in time of strife.

This means that for a character to be "good", he need only stand around with his shiny spells and such in Cordor and wait... that's all, just wait, for something to crush. All the work is done by those trying to create the strife. All the "good" has to do is... wait and respond. Typically this happens in the matter of seconds and all work done by the "evil" is then over.

Based on this, the "evil" HAS to be the impetus of change in the world, lest it remain neutral/good. Therefore, all the work needs to be done by "evil". Sadly, you will find that people that are willing to: (a) play evil "intelligently", and (b) put in the effort required to do that, are the exception of the peeps that log-in to Amia on a daily basis, not the rule.

So, in a sense, evil does the workload of trying to generate (non-giggling or romantic) plots, where as the neutral/good guys only wait and respond.

In my opinion, and the way I would interpret that, it suggests that the setting is by itself good, and evil has to put in an effort in order to change it to their favour (the evil favour).

Since there's argueably a minority of evil characters (as neutrals and good ones tend to combine), this means a minority of the playerbase, in striving for their characters ambitions, has the entire workload on their shoulders at the same time as a majority of the playerbase seek to work against them as soon as they try to fullfill their ambitions.

Good characters, from an IC perspective, don't have to work against anything as long as the setting itself remains neutral/good. Since the setting favours them, and as such would please their characters the way things already are.

Hence, you get neutral/good characters who end up with "nothing" to do, and therefore end up at Cordor Square, where they pass time giggling, having romantic adventures and patiently waits for an evil threat (which could potentially change the setting into an evil one, which would disfavour their characters IC ambitions and preferences)... to appear.

Now, this sort of confirms the opinion I posted in the first post of the thread. That a good setting is generally bad for an RP plot/storyline.

Why?

Because, as several others have already mentioned, having a good/neutral setting won't ever progress, since the (evil) opposition will be oppressed before they manage to tip the scales, which could potentially lead to good and neutral characters having to make an effort in order to put the setting back into good-mode.

Now, if you compare that to an evil setting, the neutral and good characters find themself with the workload and IC ambition of trying to change the setting, from an evil one to a good one.

As the majority of the server arguably exists of good/neutral characters, that would put a majority of the characters to work. They have something to strive for, a clear ambition and goal in changing the world to the characters IC preference, which is a good setting.

Evil characters, in an evil setting, won't become idle. Even in an evil setting, due to the way evil characters tend to reason and behave, evil will still try to top each other, even if the setting itself is already favourable to their preferences and ambitions (see: Drow society).

In my opinion, this perspective proves that a setting which leans towards evil generates more RP and self-initiated plotlines, conflicts and character progressions.

The last times a PC was ever given control of an 'army', it ended disatrously. Consider it the proverbial problem child ruining it for you all.

Quote:

In my opinion, this perspective proves that a setting which leans towards evil generates more RP and self-initiated plotlines, conflicts and character progressions.

Careful, your Ravenloft is showing.

Stop blaming the people who run the server for a problem we have no conttrol over. If you want a more evil centric server that begins with the players. Players who are, no offense, not stupid at being evil.

EDIT: I could turn it back on you, btw. Why is it fair that a minority of good/neutral characters should be saddled with the work, only for the majority of evils to sit around doing 'social RP', only reacting when the good guys try to do something that disfavours the Evils ICly and so it's immediately put down? The setting does not progress and it stagnates, with spurts of energy only when an ambitious good manages to be more than a flahs in the pan for the "bored Evil".

And for the record: Drow Society is in no way a viable comparison for "Evil Society". See: Any LE God's Worshippers.

TormakSaber wrote:

Stop blaming the people who run the server for a problem we have no conttrol over. If you want a more evil centric server that begins with the players.

Mr Mago wrote:

However, one thing I find rather interesting, is how the settlements are divided.

This is how I (read: my own subjective opinion) would perceive Amia's settlements / non-faction specific binding locations:

Good
------
Kohlingen
Winya
Bendir Dale
Brogdenstein Port
Wharftown
Mystra's Tower
Amia Forest - Grove
Nes'ek
Shine of Elistraee

"Neutral"
--------
Cordor (leans more towards good)
Uhm
Kampo's
Gulderand
Hidden Glade

Evil
----
Tarkuul
Ultrinnan
Wiltun
Underport
Zanshibon

I probably missed a couple in that list, which I might add as they pop up.

The "neutral" settlements almost always side with the "good" side of a conflict against "evil".

Cordor has done this many times, in particular. Banning the Lolthite Drow, the Banites, not hiring "evil" adventuring guards, etc etc.

All in all, I would say it's 14 (good + neutral) vs 5 (evil) settlements on the islands.

When I started playing on Amia, you didn't have Tarkuul, nor Underport, nor Wiltun.

The more or less only evil settlement or gathering point was Udos (which is now Ultrinnan), and Wyrmhold (which was more or less empty).

Irrelevant what the towns alignments are: The PCs are the movers and shakers, and the seeds of an evil centric setting are sown by THEM, not the arbitrary divisions of cities into alignments by a biased player.

TormakSaber wrote:

EDIT: I could turn it back on you, btw. Why is it fair that a minority of good/neutral characters should be saddled with the work, only for the majority of evils to sit around doing 'social RP', only reacting when the good guys try to do something that disfavours the Evils ICly and so it's immediately put down? The setting does not progress and it stagnates, with spurts of energy only when an ambitious good manages to be more than a flahs in the pan for the "bored Evil".

That's under the assumption that in an RP setting which leans towards evil, the majority of players would swift from good/neutral characters to evil ones.

Do you actually have something which serves as a clear enough indication that that would happen? Or is it a "just because"-revolt against the theory I put forward?

TormakSaber wrote:

And for the record: Drow Society is in no way a viable comparison for "Evil Society". See: Any LE God's Worshippers

Drow society was just an example of evil tending to naturally plot against other evils, even if there's no greater "Good" which can be opposed.

Quote:

Do you actually have something which serves as a clear enough indication that that would happen? Or is it a "just because"-revolt against the theory I put forward?

Logic? No. Not really. Firsthand experience of Amian players as a longstanding DM and That Gut Feeling? Yes.

In fact, I think the evil centric server would quickl;y get pissed, and kicked the shit out of, and turned back into a good aligned server because frankly, and referring back to that Firsthand Experience, the Good Guys are just *better at what they do.*

TormakSaber wrote:

Irrelevant what the towns alignments are: The PCs are the movers and shakers, and the seeds of an evil centric setting are sown by THEM, not the arbitrary divisions of cities into alignments by a biased player.

I don't see how that is irrelevant.

Winya won't accept known evil characters as their residents. Nor would Kohlingen, Bendir Dale, Brogdenstein, Amia Forest, Shine of Elistraee etc.

When you say that the players themself should drive the course of change, I can only see one way for evil characters to somehow, eventually, manipulate a currently goody-goody setting into becoming evil-ish, and that is through months (maybe years) of having undercover evil agents that seek to manipulate and become the ruling majority within one of the settlements, without becoming exposed.

Playing hidden evil is more or less always equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot.

Why?

Because at some point, one or several players will directly or indirectly metagame your characters alignment and/or intentions, and hence break the entire plot or ambition which you have created.

I tried taking that route once. Several, several, several other players have as well. And in all cases I have heard of, the players ended up giving "Let's play Evil on Amia" the finger.

Simply put. It doesn't work.

And judging by several DM's replies in this thread, it seems as if this is the only allowed method of shifting the balance on Amia.

I personally wouldn't consider myself biased towards any alignment. Perhaps I am. I try to stay objective, however.

My purpose of this topic was not to change Amia in order to achieve exclusive personal gain, but to get a discussion going on what might possibly be at fault.

And to be honest, I don't buy the "Why change something that already works?" argument any more.

Epic characters have complained about being bored, and not having anything to do ever since I started playing here.

For 4 years, level 30 characters (who no longer have the motivation of grinding for xp, as it is simply not needed upon maxing your character), has been idling at Cordor Square.

On Amia, upon reaching level 30, there's usually a handful of activities most people commit themself to.

# Idling for casual chats and giggles (stereotype: Cordor Square)
# Seeking drama in romances and other personal relations (Character X and Y married, divorced, Character X got prognent with Character Z etc etc etc.)
# Epic boss farming
# Minor events (Arena fighting, Fairs, Fashion shows, Theatric plays)

In being a good/neutral setting, good/neutral characters don't need to strive for change. The only goal for them, apart from the activities I just mentioned, is to possibly make the good setting a greater good. Changing the Utopia into an even greater Utopia.

The DMs complain that the players themself seldom take enough initiative to get things going.

The players complain that the DMs should take initiative more often to get things going.

I think the setting itself is to be blamed for Amia often being uneventful, stagnant and ever-the-same. Not the DMs. Nor the players.

If we are to be honest. How much has actually -changed- on Amia during the last two years? Not added to the module, but changed.

Fear of change leads to protectionism, which leads to stagnation rather than progression.

Stagnation leads to boredom which eventually leads to frustration and irritation.

Meh. Screw it.

Perhaps I'm the one and only individual who thinks that Amia could improve, with change.

Perhaps the server, the module and the setting is the Utopia of an RP environment already, and my own preferences are simply not in line with the majority.

I've at least expressed my thoughts on the matter, and hope someone's found some form of appreciation for them.

TormakSaber wrote:

In fact, I think the evil centric server would quickl;y get pissed, and kicked the (censored) out of, and turned back into a good aligned server because frankly, and referring back to that Firsthand Experience, the Good Guys are just *better at what they do.*

So, the core of the issue lies in good players simply being more knowledgeable, adjustable and likely more intelligent than those who play evil characters?

Or, is it a reference to game engine mechanical differences? (Classes, builds, etc.)

Mr Mago wrote:

snip

I actually agree with you, save for the fact that drow have stuff to do at being epic levels, but they are a bit diffrent. but yes, I do agree with you about the fact that things being stagnate and could be improved.

I must say it is discouraging to have the phrase 'stupid evil' used in such an expansive sense when speaking of PC initiatives. I also know DM support as an issue in this topic will get many people angry so I'll make it clear that's not what I mean here.

Getting called 'stupid evil' because a plot line is designed to be accessible to everyone is really unfair. So you have figured out what will probably happen next? So what? Put your ego aside and let people RP around the idea before you charge off to kill. Maybe someone else there knows something you don't, maybe what they know will lead to another development in the plot, to another character you wouldn't have suspected.

To assume that the persons who have instigated the evil or criminal act haven't thought past the initial action is insulting. Nine times out of ten plans will have been made for follow up RP and ninety-nine times out of one hundred this RP will never happen due to someone getting bored and rushing ahead of the plot. If you only read the first page of every chapter you can't say you know the story.

I have seen good criminal and evil RP ruined by 'good' characters standing around, talking in circles until they literally invent a reason to carry out their desired course of action. Quite often this course of action has little to do with the facts they have just encountered and much to do with here say, history and various 'other' sources. Engaging in the story that someone is trying to make for you is better then rewriting it to make it do what you want.

This is especially true if you are a bored Epic character; if everything is so dull and nothing ever happens then don't go smashing to death every attempt made to give you something to think about. If you're not going to take the initiative to create a conflict plot yourself and you don't have the patience to let others enjoy the plots that are made then please say so from the outset. Then people who are willing to put hours into creating a plot will be able to exclude you and your inherit boredom from the beginning.

If that sounds harsh then good, people are here for mutual enjoyment not the gratification of one persons ego.

Mr Mago wrote:

Meh. Screw it.

Perhaps I'm the one and only individual who thinks that Amia could improve, with change.

Mago, and you know I say this with love, but I think you should stay away from this glaring martyrdom. It implies a selfish intent to your arguments.

And I think if you both read and intuit most of the DM responses in this thread, you'll see that we agree with you in principle. But to suddenly and drastically "balance" evil and good settings on the server is a ludicrous and painfully OOC maneuver. Consider, Mago, that the same team you're dealing with now is NOT really in any way the same time that pulled all of those settings you listed out of the package. We inherited them, just like all the new players do, just like all the new PCs do.

Take a good hard look at that nice list of Good/Evil/Neutral settings. You will notice that all of the settings under Good are the oldest settings and have been here forever. Some of the Neutral/Evil settings (Tarkuul, Underport, Wiltun) have come just within the last couple of years...under the team you have now.

If you read between the lines, you can see that some of us are working towards what you want, but it is a very slow process, and we do desperately want PCs to be the driving force behind it, rather than us.

And in stating that, I return to the original statement I made at the outset: good players outnumber evil players in number, and even in mindset (as some of those evil PCs are just bored good players).

We cannot change this.

But we can do what I often do: open up opportunities for evil players and factions. NO, I will NOT advertise that a door has opened for Evil PCs/factions to take a foothold or to gain control or take advantage. One of the quickest ways to piss me off is to make it seem like you want me to "work with you" on establishing yourself or your faction as one thing or another. Fuck you, no way, your character makes his/her own destiny.

But this doesn't mean that I, in my own personal DM'ing, don't leave doors open. But I am subtle, and you have to be quick...though you do not necessarily have to be intelligent (I'm understanding of Chaotic Evil, but I will say that I tend to make them work even yet still a little harder because they ought to be rare and they ultimately ought to have purpose, as mindless carnage, destruction, and bloodshed loses its meaning very quickly).

Mr Mago wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

In fact, I think the evil centric server would quickl;y get pissed, and kicked the (censored) out of, and turned back into a good aligned server because frankly, and referring back to that Firsthand Experience, the Good Guys are just *better at what they do.*

So, the core of the issue lies in good players simply being more knowledgeable, adjustable and likely more intelligent than those who play evil characters?

Or, is it a reference to game engine mechanical differences? (Classes, builds, etc.)

I'm saying that in my experience, no offense Jess, Evil players come up with less intelligent, less thought out, less successful plans than Good players.

And asking the good PCs to ignore your plot for the sake of "story purposes" is in effect asking them to betray their characters and their RP for the sake of your own. Incredibly selfish.

It's simple as this:

Bad guy makes change. Good guy keeps it the same.

Most Amia's changes were OOC with some IC explanation to chock it up.

Which leads to my point: PCs do not change the world. Amia is only persistent according to the whims of the DMs.

The PCs can only change Amia as far as the DMs allow.

Amia has not changed much, except map layout wise.

The cities ALL retain the same names they had in creation, including Cordor(which should at least have been called New Cordor after the horde incident(again, no PCs, just NPCs changing the city)

A prime example of the bologna that keeps the world stagnant is Nesek. Even though Nesek wasn't the main target it was affected none the less. Then every hero came down and hunkered up, disallowing ANYONE entrance, until it was simply brought back to...Nesek.

SO the DMs never broke the spirits of the heroes who remained in vigil of Nesek....but if ten Epic Banites came along and took a place NPCs would be riding their asses.

And then what makes it worse is a scenario like this. Cordor always has good guards usually. The one time the guard feels like being evil and an ass, is when someone who is thought to be evil has a finger pointed at them, at which point even without proof they take the criminal to jail.

Just seems like Amia differs from the rest of Faerun in that, Faerun is a world full of powerful evil and heroes STRIVE to undo it. Amia is a world full of good, with villains STRIVING.....to pick a pocket, AND be able to get away with it.

TormakSaber wrote:

I'm saying that in my experience, no offense Jess, Evil players come up with less intelligent, less thought out, less successful plans than Good players.

And asking the good PCs to ignore your plot for the sake of "story purposes" is in effect asking them to betray their characters and their RP for the sake of your own. Incredibly selfish.

I think you missed one of the key concepts in my post; accessibility. I'm not interested in proving that I'm smarter then Joe Blogs the paladin. The idea is that more people can appreciate the plot line and hence more people can take part.

What I suggested is that people take a second to interact with the other characters involved in solving or resolving the conflict as those characters may have been given plot 'hooks' or 'devices' before they arrived at the crucial point or point of conflict. I believe this may be better for RP, as opposed to charging off with their proverbial blood up to find someone they believe may or may not have something to do with the incident.

I may not have the intelligence, subtlety and selflessness required to encourage people to consider the wider implications of listening to what their fellow RPers in a plot line might already have learned about an event, and so I find it concerning in the utmost that 'good' characters, the RP illuminate as it were, didn't think of it too.

No offense taken

Quote:

Most Amia's changes were OOC with some IC explanation to chock it up.

Nope...

Quote:

SO the DMs never broke the spirits of the heroes who remained in vigil of Nesek...

Bullshit I didn't. Don't talk about things you know nothing about, sorry.

Uhh... Why would cities randomly change their name?

You seem to be complaining that the good guys are doing what good guys do....

The Incognitos wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

I'm saying that in my experience, no offense Jess, Evil players come up with less intelligent, less thought out, less successful plans than Good players.

And asking the good PCs to ignore your plot for the sake of "story purposes" is in effect asking them to betray their characters and their RP for the sake of your own. Incredibly selfish.

I think you missed one of the key concepts in my post; accessibility. I'm not interested in proving that I'm smarter then Joe Blogs the paladin. The idea is that more people can appreciate the plot line and hence more people can take part.

What I suggested is that people take a second to interact with the other characters involved in solving or resolving the conflict as those characters may have been given plot 'hooks' or 'devices' before they arrived at the crucial point or point of conflict. I believe this may be better for RP, as opposed to charging off with their proverbial blood up to find someone they believe may or may not have something to do with the incident.

I may not have the intelligence, subtlety and selflessness required to encourage people to consider the wider implications of listening to what their fellow RPers in a plot line might already have learned about an event, and so I find it concerning in the utmost that 'good' characters, the RP illuminate as it were, didn't think of it too.

No offense taken

The MILLISECOND you open your plot up, you admit that it is no longer under your control (and really, was it ever under your control to begin with? Probably now.), and must admit that things may not go according to your peachy keen plan, up to and including your plan being completely foiled. It happens.

Quote:

What I suggested is that people take a second to interact with the other characters involved in solving or resolving the conflict as those characters may have been given plot 'hooks' or 'devices' before they arrived at the crucial point or point of conflict. I believe this may be better for RP, as opposed to charging off with their proverbial blood up to find someone they believe may or may not have something to do with the incident.

So you're telling people how to play their PCs and react? Nay says I, you aren't the DM and even we don't tell people how to reacct to a situation, 99% of the time. That's why it's called a "reaction".

Again, you seem to be complaining because PCs act like PCs and not your rigorously scripted dolls.

Duh, cities change names becaue...uh....they change...duh..like New York was once New Amsterdam.....it's called simply "change".

Also, Nesek is Nesek, so everything that happened during that event meant almost nothing.....except a good time to remember.

Cordor could have been called "New Cordor", but wasn't. Nesek could hve been called "The Ruins of Nesek". Instead it's Nesek...do the math.

TormakSaber wrote:

The MILLISECOND you open your plot up, you admit that it is no longer under your control (and really, was it ever under your control to begin with? Probably now.), and must admit that things may not go according to your peachy keen plan, up to and including your plan being completely foiled. It happens.

No....we have to admit it's under YOUR control,not other PCs and not ourselves.....and THERE lies the problem. If you let some evil occassionally win, not just once a year, but often, then maybe players might feel like they have control.

So in actuality, as DMs, the changes are YOURS to make, not the players.

Geld Yaztran wrote:

Duh, cities change names becaue...uh....they change...duh..like New York was once New Amsterdam.....it's called simply "change".

The name changed because it was conquered, and the conquerors renamed it. (That's also why Constantinople was changed to Istanbul, by the way.) Cities generally only get their names changed if some foreign power takes them over, or if some meglomaniac renames an existing city after himself. Rome has been named Rome for over two thousand years. Paris has been named Paris since 212 AD.

Then take a wild guess what should be allowed then to have a name change....maybe some take over WOULD be nice....it'd certainly be different.

I'm just saying the players of villains are only a catalyst....a reason for a change...but ANY change to Amia ultimately is the DMs decision to make.

Last edited by Yossarin on Thu, Apr 02 2009, 4:32 AM, edited 1 time in total.

Geld, is it not true that if we DMs took an active role in supporting evil and screwing over the good guys, that we're basically thumbing our noses at the majority of players on the server and making it impossible for them to ever feel like they've accomplished anything?

Yes, I am aware that that is currently how the players of evil PCs feel right now. I feel for you, I really do, but I keep saying in this thread I'm not going to hold your fucking hand and make things easier on you just because you're the minority and we need* balance.

I keep trying to convince everyone that I strive to create a level playing field in my DM'ing, but if you refuse to believe me I don't know what else to say!

*need is debatable, but largely irrelevant to my point.

EDIT:

Quote:

If you let some evil occassionally win, not just once a year, but often, then maybe players might feel like they have control.

The destruction of the Northern Outskirts and any associated fallout from it was strictly the action of evil PCs, and it originated in the hands and minds of evil PCs. I just faciliated and made a token effort to let good guys get involved, too. So this does happen...but note, it originated from PCs, not a DM, which is exactly what I said I wanted to see happen in the very beginning.

I never once argued that DMs do not have the control over how the setting is going to be, good or evil. But I did argue about why the initiative has to be taken from the player perspective, with us facilitating, rather than us making the changes and forcing the rest of you to play on our personal playground.

Geld Yaztran wrote:

Then take a wild guess what should be allowed then to have a name change....

The thing about conquering a place is that if you say, "this city is now named Fruitopolis," no one can argue with you. If they can argue with you, then you probably didn't actually conquer it.

(I don't know what place you're referring to, by the way. I only started playing on this server in the winter of 2008.)

Well what the hell does a person need to be evil? God damn blueprints and piecharts?

It's gotten so nobody should play evil at all....we should all just get along and RP drinking weak tea all day.

You want EVERY VILLAIN to be freakin Lex Luthor....and here's the thing...my character is actually known to be a manipulative bastard, and that's all I do, because in the end there IS NO POINT TO PLANNING ANYTHING (let me repeat that for blind) A N Y T H I N G, BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY PLAN THAT DEPENDS ON A DM IS BOUND TO GOOOOOOOO WRONG.

p.s. oh except Freys plans...they all go right.

And whoever put Zanshiboon in the abyss like freakin ages ago.

Geld Yaztran wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

The MILLISECOND you open your plot up, you admit that it is no longer under your control (and really, was it ever under your control to begin with? Probably now.), and must admit that things may not go according to your peachy keen plan, up to and including your plan being completely foiled. It happens.

No....we have to admit it's under YOUR control,not other PCs and not ourselves.....and THERE lies the problem. If you let some evil occassionally win, not just once a year, but often, then maybe players might feel like they have control.

So in actuality, as DMs, the changes are YOURS to make, not the players.

To be truthful Geld? Earn that win. Don't rely on it being handed to you. Ne'sek we didn't get handed victory at the end. The good PCs who'd been fighting there from the get go hadn't exactly been there just a single night. Many of them had been there for an RL month's worth of in game time.

In dedication, and in cleverness, EARN that bloody win.

I've tried some playing of an Evil PC that plans .. still probably going to when I can but truth told, it is NOT easy as you think. Trying to plot and scheme should NOT be something you have to rely on Deux ex Machina to succeed, or people to unreasonably bend to your wishes. You need to OUT THINK your IC foes.

Any plan, does NOT survive contact with the Enemy. Trust me on this, I should know. As Bryce, he's planned stuff during the Ne'sek project and cause of his own mistakes made, things did not work out when really, had he played his cards better he would have.

One of the reasons I hold such respect for well played baddies is the seeming quiet dignity and grace they showed when playing their charries knowing full well that when it came down to it, D&D is a hero's game.

This thread is really, really disappointing me.

*hangs his head*

Geld Yaztran wrote:

Well what the hell does a person need to be evil? God damn blueprints and piecharts?

An idea that doesn't involve golems made out of poop. :wink:

Don't take that as a personal blow, btw, it was a jest. That was a long time ago, and I know you've looked back on it and laughed.

No, what a person needs to accomplish evil is to know how to make it happen. This does not necessarily require intelligent evil. Sometimes brute force works. Sometimes intimidation works. Sometimes magic. Sometimes anything but magic. Sometimes deceit and manipulation. Sometimes a full-blown disguise and cover story. Sometimes an assassination of the right person. And sometimes just going fucking crazy and murdering a lot of people.

I like to think these are generally the same requirements for a good person trying to make good things happen.

Sorry but that is the most utter bull crap I ever heard.

By the way the first Matron of Ultrinnan and many other drow thought it an entertaining idea.....just the DMs didn't want to do it...because we ever had a rich history of agreeing.

Furthermore I tried scheming and plotting...in Ruathym. Anybody who originally went to Ruathym knew who Quar'Agh was. IN the end some other DM took over Lord Ruathym and desroyed OUR player created neighborhood watch.

There was Good RP there, no stupidity, and I did a damn good job manipulating everyone.....everyone but the god damned Lord Wiltun.

I never said how OOC angry I really was about that until now. But I was steaming mad.

I enjoyed my RP with Thistlefoot, Rhad, and the others.

The last time I ever went to Ruathym...it was like a damned circus....worse.....exactly like Cordor...which is what I strived to prevent.

The reason for disallowing the neighborhood watch was that the DMs had their OWN plans for Ruathym. Read the statement above this one for the result.

"The MILLISECOND you open your plot up, you admit that it is no longer under your control (and really, was it ever under your control to begin with? Probably now.), and must admit that things may not go according to your peachy keen plan, up to and including your plan being completely foiled. It happens.

Quote:
What I suggested is that people take a second to interact with the other characters involved in solving or resolving the conflict as those characters may have been given plot 'hooks' or 'devices' before they arrived at the crucial point or point of conflict. I believe this may be better for RP, as opposed to charging off with their proverbial blood up to find someone they believe may or may not have something to do with the incident.

So you're telling people how to play their PCs and react? Nay says I, you aren't the DM and even we don't tell people how to reacct to a situation, 99% of the time. That's why it's called a "reaction".

Again, you seem to be complaining because PCs act like PCs and not your rigorously scripted dolls." --Tormak

Please don't put words in my mouth. The burden of action still lies with 'evil' characters, that is a constant and I'm not complaining about it. I was simply trying to point out that if that is the case, then it is very frustrating to have a thoroughly RPed and planned plot destroyed by casual meta-gaming and bored skylarking. That is why I added the 'if you don't want to engage, leave people alone to RP'.

I gave no pretense of wanting to control peoples characters, but rather asked that if people do not wish to follow the majority in a given RP situation that they not ruin it by spilling the beans or making unwarranted and insubstantial allusions and accusations that way well undermine a simple plot.

I'm not trying to tell you how to run your world Tormak, just asking that you show a measure of respect. If I'm out of line with this so be it, but being a DM isn't a license to make inflammatory comments. It's petty, as is picking and choosing bits and pieces of a discussion so as to take it from what was initially an argument aimed at improving the RP environment and making it an insult.

Why is it bull crap? It is the litmus test I personally apply to everyone, regardless of alignment.

Quote:

You want EVERY VILLAIN to be freakin Lex Luthor....and here's the thing...my character is actually known to be a manipulative bastard, and that's all I do, because in the end there IS NO POINT TO PLANNING ANYTHING (let me repeat that for blind) A N Y T H I N G, BECAUSE EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY PLAN THAT DEPENDS ON A DM IS BOUND TO GOOOOOOOO WRONG.

The three people behind the storm that weraked havoc on Cordor recently aren't Lex Luthor in any way, shape, or form. What they did required no real intelligence, all it required was the fact that they were clerics, and one of them happened to be a cleric of a god who had an age-old bone to pick with Cordor.

Now, I will admit, their plan did not work out entirely as they'd intended, but they actually wound up causing more damage than they'd thought they might. It never went wrong, it just didn't go how they'd planned, because they didn't do the research into what was there and had been there all along. And that's fine. But they still got to be evil, and to have an impact that actually means something.

I think you're angry right now, Geld, and it is coloring your responses. I'm being pretty straight with you because you're a player who has been talked down to quite enough by DMs and fellow players alike and you deserve to at least be taken seriously, so I'm responding.

I don't quite get how I'm "not respecting" anyone in this topic. I'm stating facts, for the large part.

EDIT: You edited.

Quote:

I gave no pretense of wanting to control peoples characters, but rather asked that if people do not wish to follow the majority in a given RP situation that they not ruin it by spilling the beans or making unwarranted and insubstantial allusions and accusations that way well undermine a simple plot.

So... you are asking them to not roleplay their character as who they are, because it inconveniences you and your plans for your plot.

As a post script: I was really offended by what Tormak put in there because starting any evil plot is really about giving those bored epics something to do when the poo hits the fan.

My point was that it's annoying that some can't wait and would rather just ram a fan in there and make it into poo. If these people would just stay away until the poo fanning starts...

EDIT: If 'RPing' means being a wanker then no, I'm asking them to piss off when asked and let the others involved enjoy the situation. If you think that 'I'm being IC' is a viable excuse for screwing things up for everyone else then why is it bad for epic CE characters to hunt down and kill weaker good guys with impunity? 'It's IC' after all.

The point is showing a bit of human consideration for others enjoyment is what I would expect from any reasonable person

If you see how these players responses are here, you should see them IN GAME when I'm trying to be IC and someone is treating me lik Geld the evil poster....but yes you are right...I got heated....I added emphasis to my above post.

It's less anger than frustration. Because in truth regardless of what you may have thought of that stupid "Poop Golem" idea, I put alot of IC effort and and went through a lot, made a lot of IC promises, and got permission( I CAN'T BELIEVE I GOT THAT) from the first Matron herself...only to have you guys throw it in my face like.....well.....crap.

You never took it seriously to begin with, which sucked. The character I played was raunchy in the style of Batmans Joker, with disgusting gimmicks and cheap toilet humor(most of it translating into a deadly but humorous arsenal). HE was Schtick....hell even survived wearing outrageous purple and yellow threads in Ultrinnan...juggling his spare eyeballs.

He was a wacky character, but it took effort on my part....do you know how hard comedy is in the underdark???!!!

In the end, though I have forgiven, I have never forgotten that incident. I'll always feel like in the end EVERY plan I have is a "Poop Golem" Plan to you.

Evil vs Good.

Who is online