Goblin Squad Member
|
The freedom to role-play an evil character is something I would very much like to see in the game, even though I will almost certainly never partake.
I have very high hopes that the mere sandbox nature of the game will leave ample room for deception, intrigue, espionage, sabotage, and all the other classic tools of villains. I also have very high hopes that Alignment will matter, and that there will be threads that weave through the whole game where we players are given the opportunity to act in furtherance of the plans of our chosen faction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would love to see some "lawful evil content" in the game.
Most "evil" in video games is closer to chaotic evil, in which players go on a killing spree in towns, or neutral evil acts with immoral choices which give some beneficial rewards to the characters. Rarely the genre offers players to roleplay as lawful evil tyrant-type characters. (perhaps due to the nature of most crpg games are adventures based?)
Making a charismatic character who began an cult in the city's sewer slowly corrupting the citizens to become his mad followers sounds enticing to me. =)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd imagine with the PvP and sandbox nature of the game, they'd almost positively have the opportunity for players to play on the darker, more sinister or "evil" side.
Unfortunately far too many players (and developers) don't do a particulary good job portraying "evil". Rarely does "evil" translate to the kind of mustache twirling, bunny torturing, rabid, slay everything in sight maniac's that most players (and far too many Dev's) seem to think it should. Historicaly the most reviled individuals on record, usualy did not consider themselves to be "evil"....in thier own twisted minds they were only doing what they considered "neccessary" or even "noble/good".
It'd be nice to see even in a fantasy setting a more mature take on evil. People who were not neccesarly horrible by nature, but who could not help but fall victem to thier own frailties and drives. Others who were obsessed by a particular goal and willing to go to any length to achieve it (perahps reluctantly, perhaps not). Others still who actualy believe they are pursuing a noble or virtous path...but are so horribly blinded or self-deluded that what they consider "good" is exactly the opposite of what most of the rest of the world would consider it to be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem most games have with morality is that they only give two specific options, only one way to do good and one way to do evil. Yahtzee has repeated this several times in his game reviews, I think most notably in his Witcher 2 review. Most game makers just can't code the number of ways a player could act in any given scenario, and have the NPCs react accordingly; all that dialogue and animation is just too difficult and expensive, and that's understandable.
But in a more sandbox game, especially if PC-to-NPC interaction isn't as common as PC-to-PC interaction... hmm. That alone provides a lot more opportunities for good, evil, and somewhere in between.
There's another thread in the main Pathfinder forums going about evil PCs... that one is worth looking at for anyone looking at what evil characters can do.
As for real-life examples, as Socrates once said it, "Nobody commits evil knowingly." Almost all real-life villains either didn't realize just how evil their actions were, didn't bother to think about how they were hurting others, or honestly believed they were doing it for the greater good. As GrumpyMel pointed out, there are many kinds of evil, as there are many kinds of good.
Let me share my two favorite evil characters, showing that evil is about mindsets as much as it is about actions.
1) I was running in a rather silly 3.5 Gestalt campaign, and decided to play an imp Cleric. You know, the Lawful Evil devil. However, my imp was the party healer/support, but I came up with a fun justification for it. Yes, my imp did almost nothing but help others, heal them, and offer advice, but I had an ulterior motive. I wasn't helping them to be nice, I was helping them so that they would do what I wanted later on. When I save that town from an orc attack, it wasn't to help them; it was so that they'd be more willing to do what I wanted in the future. I think the video game Overlord 2 dealt with this a bit... the idea of long-term evil.
2) In a 3.5 campaign, one of my friends was playing an Archivist (basically, a cleric with a spellbook.) He did nothing but buff the party and Total Defense in combat; he was our support/defender. However, he was Neutral Evil. He never hurt a living soul, but he wasn't doing it out of mercy, just that he thought combat was beneath him. "Let those other party members do all the dirty work, I'll just keep their sorry hides alive!"
So, many real-life examples of doing the right thing the wrong way, and doing the wrong thing the right way; and two game examples of doing the right thing the wrong way.
If the game is designed in a way that gives players freedom but makes things a little easier for good players and victims of crimes, there is no "problem" of evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd imagine with the PvP and sandbox nature of the game, they'd almost positively have the opportunity for players to play on the darker, more sinister or "evil" side.
Unfortunately far too many players (and developers) don't do a particulary good job portraying "evil". Rarely does "evil" translate to the kind of mustache twirling, bunny torturing, rabid, slay everything in sight maniac's that most players (and far too many Dev's) seem to think it should. Historicaly the most reviled individuals on record, usualy did not consider themselves to be "evil"....in thier own twisted minds they were only doing what they considered "neccessary" or even "noble/good".
It'd be nice to see even in a fantasy setting a more mature take on evil. People who were not neccesarly horrible by nature, but who could not help but fall victem to thier own frailties and drives. Others who were obsessed by a particular goal and willing to go to any length to achieve it (perahps reluctantly, perhaps not). Others still who actualy believe they are pursuing a noble or virtous path...but are so horribly blinded or self-deluded that what they consider "good" is exactly the opposite of what most of the rest of the world would consider it to be.
This is true, but Golarion actually has incarnations of it's alignments in it's deities. I am not making any claim about which comes from which (alignment from the example of the diety, or the behavior of the diety from the alignment), but it is true that being Neutral Good does have a certain pattern of behavior exemplified by the respective god; likewise, Neutral Evil has a certain behavior. I agree that persons who believe they are doing good could be doing evil when not working outright in the name of a deity. Of my head examples of this would include Nazi Germany and the Children of the Light (in the Wheel of Time series).
I want to clarify that the confusion between relative non-religious actions can be between any two alignments...I could see an evil guy who "accidently" does good (like Riddick). Or even a chotic evil demon who destroys a devil, in the process releasing all the good creatures the devil had enslaved.
Also, for there to be evil clerics in the sewer corrupting the city from the sewers, there either have to be corruptible NPCs (how would that work? Is that really reasonable?) or a lot of people willing to play as the corruptees (not all that likely). Certainly, players can work together to enact evil plans, like the EVE Online incident, but Pathfinder Online isn't going to be that sort of environment, and even if it were, it still isn't really what you seem to be wanting.
I remember reading one of the journal on goblinwork blog about taking over bandit lairs and the possibility to start a bandit gang on my own, so I just throw out the same idea to a different target theme (evil cultist instead of evil bandit).
There were also games like Black & White which could make temples for npc worshipers to pray at and other restaurant/shop simulation games which you find ways to attract customers. Changing the restaurant theme to religion(could be animal dwelling nest&farms/general stores/bandit lair, etc.) sounds interesting to me in a sandbox world. Not sure if they would work, just some ideas.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unfortunately far too many players (and developers) don't do a particulary good job portraying "evil". Rarely does "evil" translate to the kind of mustache twirling, bunny torturing, rabid, slay everything in sight maniac's that most players (and far too many Dev's) seem to think it should. Historicaly the most reviled individuals on record, usualy did not consider themselves to be "evil"....in thier own twisted minds they were only doing what they considered "neccessary" or even "noble/good".
Keep asking why over and over and you eventually get to the point where anything people consider "good" is something that increases the likelihood of either their survival, their progeny's survival, or their supporting community's survival. You change the way an organism functions in order to survive, and you dramatically change its perceptions of good and evil. It all comes from that base urge to survive. In fact, eliminate that base urge and replace it with something else, and that same organism with the same needs to survive again has yet another dramatically different concept of good and evil.
It's something humans need to consider as the development of AI progresses. The base instinct to survive is NOT a natural result of the thinking process, but merely what has survived to this day. Do we want to create an artificial race that will view us as competition? Or would we rather program them with a base instinct, or a point of reference from which to begin all their reasoning, that tells them to imprint on a human and then seek their survival. True AI without the ego or competition. If truly intelligent and sentient, it will develop a sense of good and evil that will baffle us!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Blaeringr, that's an interesting point. I think it's true if you accept that the community's survival is based on people with different belief systems and values being able to live peacefully side by side. That's where I think we find the true foundation for Good and Evil.
Good is accepting diversity without judgment, respecting others rights and property, and at its apex going out of our way to help those in need.
Evil is intolerance, feeling entitled to the fruits of another's labor, and at its apex using force and/or deception to take those fruits, or anything else that you covet.
My question is who is it that determines if a character is evil/good/lawful/chaotic? Is it the player's decision? Who's will is it when a player is "acting out the wrong alignment". Is it at the whim of some GMs? Is there some overarching GM who acts as the personas for the different alignments?
Don't give an alignment choice and there will never be a problem of acting out of alignment.
Simply let players do whatever it is they want in the sandbox scenario, other people can judge their alignment.
At the most, have an alignment stat that changes based on our actions so other players have a good idea of what each other are like.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon why? Why are what you call "good" good, and "evil" evil? Follow your own case a little further and you will see that accepting diversity without judgement increases chances of personal survival. It has nothing to do with whether or not you believe that to be the case. And intolerance encourages uniformity, which makes it easier to wipe out a community all at once. Evil, see?
Good and evil are just abstract ways of explaining what are really quite simple concepts. The abstraction comes by way of understanding it through a dualistic brain. One hemisphere of the brain has a region that has been documented to be the center of thinking attached to the concept of self and individuality. The opposing hemisphere has a corresponding region that does things in a very opposite, paradoxical way: it directs thought processes to think outside oneself. Thinking of our personal survival only works for one side of the brain. The other side twists it all around and spits out all this nonsense about "good" and "evil".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with the idea of good and evil being relative in our world. However, Golarion has an actual pantheon of gods which instantiate each of the alignments. It is absurd to say good and evil does not truly exist in such a world.
Wait, let me rephrase this...in our world good and evil are relative and Good and Evil, the absolutes, probably do not exist (up for argument due to the lack of an interactive absolute judge "God(s)". In Golarion Good and Evil do exist, because there are true interactive judges, the pantheon of gods; likewise so do good and evil. By definition, any action is good from the perspective of any creature if the action is in tune with their preferred alignment. That is what it is to be of an alignment, viewing respective actions and causes as good. This agrees with Blaeringr's definition and argument of good, as long as Good and Evil are kept as separate absolutes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As someone not very familiar with Golarion, I would pose the following question: is it possible in the setting for a god to die?
If yes, then you have right there a basis for determining good and evil, at least as far as concerns their interaction among each other.
If no, you come to the question: is faith and worship from mortals something that is in some way beneficial to the gods.
In D&D I know the answer to be yes, that faith is in fact necessary for the continued existence of a god.
Going from there, it is quite elementary to see how it is in a god's interests to encourage the survival of a particular society, and to encourage that survival in ways that directs them to look towards said god as a benefactor.
The "lawful good" gods of humanity encourage a healthy and tolerant society: numbers and stability are their insurance.
The "chaotic evil" gods of, let's say the orcs, pursue their own survival by encouraging the growth of a society that focuses on strength floating to the top of a chaotic, survival of the fittest culture. So numbers and the strong arising through chance are their staple.
The "chaotic good" gods of, well let's just say of multiple races, are playing a niche market, ensuring their survival by sowing discord in lawful societies. Scavenging off of lawful good, for the most part.
And "lawful evil" gods, let's use a god of dragons, for example, put their survival in the hands of a small few who ensure their continuance by building up a few to be exceptionally powerful and well equipped to survive. So these gods survive by focusing their efforts on a small concentrated target.
So if you can't see it in a relative sense even when looking at the pantheons of fantasy worlds, then I would put it to you that you are still looking at it from the ant's perspective.
As far as in this world, reality, I have my own theories. Let's say the christians are right, just for argument's sake. Actually, it doesn't change if we say the muslims, or the jews, or whoever is right. The point is, most religious people believe in an immortal god. One who cannot die, no matter what. If we accept that for a moment, then what possible explanation can we come up with for that being's interpretation, as we supposedly have it, for "good and evil". Let me suggest to you that if such a being does exist, it is simply pandering to our point of reference. It's just telling us to do what makes most sense given our own internal imperative to survive as interpreted through a paradoxical dualistic brain.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, gods can "die". But I have only seen evidence of gods being killed by other gods and there are cults that hope to bring back dead gods. So far no one has succeeded except for the case of a god bringing another back to as a lich, but this does not mean it is not possible.
So if you can't see it in a relative sense even when looking at the pantheons of fantasy worlds, then I would put it to you that you are still looking at it from the ant's perspective.
Sorry, I am not sure what you are saying here. I can understand your position about relative good and evil, it is a fairly universal belief. It is simply a replacement of the terms right and wrong with good and evil, respectively.
In the Christian religion, and I must also assume every other Monotheistic religion, Good (the absolute with a capital "G") is that which agrees with or has the presence of God. In polytheistic religions, you would have each god doing what they feel is right, as argued above, each is by definition acting as is "good" for them (and assumedly their followers acting in kind are also "good" in the sense of their deity). But, if we assigned absolute titles to each variation of alignment such as Good -> Evil and Lawful -> Chaotic, then those titles are absolute by definition. By extension, everything gets labelled by the absolute with the same criterion of the monotheistic religion "that which agrees with or has the presence of the respective god".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But in a monotheistic religion with an immortal god, why IS there a good or evil to such a being. And even if there is such a thing to them, how can it possibly make sense to us? It can't, so such a being stoops to our level and tries to teach us how best to pursue our own interests without short changing ourselves by our own measuring stick. It's not his, or her, or it's good or evil, it's ours that we're too stupid to see. If you don't see monotheistic religion that way, assuming for argument's sake it has any correctness, then you haven't asked "why" enough times.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you don't see monotheistic religion that way, assuming for argument's sake it has any correctness, then you haven't asked "why" enough times.
Whether you are right or wrong is irrelevant. Your opinion was obscured by calling us/me stupid for the second time. Thanks for the debate up to that point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Don't be putting words into my mouth. The only time I used the word "stupid" was in describing people as a mass, not accurately following their own interests. And I used it with the pronoun "we", which included myself, not you (singular or plural) as you stated.
I did imply that your approach was stopping half way, but if you want to insist on painting me in a bad light for encouraging you to go deeper into the topic, then yes, it's a good time to end the conversation. Clearly we are seeing many things differently right now.
Goblinworks Founder
|
The freedom to role-play an evil character is something I would very much like to see in the game, even though I will almost certainly never partake.
I have very high hopes that the mere sandbox nature of the game will leave ample room for deception, intrigue, espionage, sabotage, and all the other classic tools of villains.
IMHO, Nihimon pegged it.
Gather round, Kids! Old Jim has story to tell. Evil in a Sandbox, you say! Let me tell you a tale of Sandbox evil in the EVE Online sandbox called New Eden.
Once upon a time there was a mighty empire in New Eden dominated by a coalition of powerful alliances each made up of dozens of player corporations creating a player built faction consisting of tens of thousands of players. This faction was called DRF for Drone Region Federation and was led by a savvy, wealthy, and powerful group of Russian players. They fielded the largest fleets ever seen. Unfortunately, reports throughout the player community had suggested that much of this coalition’s wealth had been acquired through illegal use of mining bots. Nevertheless, their influence kept growing as territory throughout New Eden fell to the overwhelming pressure of their unmatched capital fleets.
Morale throughout the player community was low. It was Winter and the DRF was coming down from the North. Only a few coalitions resisted the onslaught. One of these rebel coalitions held the South East regions of New Eden. This coalition was called the Southern Comfort and was led by the capital wielding players of the Against All Authorities (-A-) alliance and their allies including the scrappy Imperial Order (IO)alliance.
During those days of yore, Old Jim played a toon named Beppe in the IO community. Beppe was a battleship pilot, a good one, who kept showing up on the top-ten kill boards for the alliance. Beppe had earned his stripes in the old war – The Thunderdome War for the Delve region in New Eden’s Western reaches.
The war with DRF in the South was not going well, but we kept fighting. There were rumors of a capital ship nerf coming. This change might alter the balance of power rendering DRF’s vast capital superiority less significant. We kept fighting in hope that we could hold out for the nerf and a new wind across New Eden.
We lost one strategic fight after another… First, we lost the strategic HED-GP system. Thousands of players were on hand to witness this fall. HED-GP was the border system to the safety of NPC empire space. There were so many players in the system that the servers were choking with lag. Days later and still reeling from the loss of HED-GP, we lost the DP46-O system. Oh my, DP46 was like our capital in the south. It was another strategic loss. DRF had broken our jump bridge network and cut us off from our allies. For Imperial Order, we had our backs up against the wall.
We were pushed back into our most remote bastion of defense, the player built station in AXDX-F. We were low on supplies and cut off from resupply routes to NPC empire space. That’s when the drama started. In the IO leadership, there was trouble brewing. The chief of the alliance was mostly AWOL. Other leaders had stepped up to the fight and were heroes, but they stepped on some toes and some of the corporate CEOs (guild masters) were pissed. The disgruntled CEOs began listening to a new pilot called Puppetmaster. He offered to take on some audit roles in the alliance. No one else was doing the job and so he was given the access rights to the role. He reported that the heroes had been crooked. He claimed they were stealing wealth from the alliance’s rich moons. These were lies but no one could dispute him, because the big boss was away and it is was his word v.s. the heroes. Most pilots ignored Puppetmaster, but the disgruntled CEOs jealous of the leadership and influence of the heroes and covetous of the rich moons began to make a stink.
That’s when the AWOL alliance chief shows up for a bit, listens to some back room chat from the disgruntled CEOs and hears about the alleged reports of theft by the heroes. He doesn’t have time to deal with it properly and get the scoop from the heroes. They are busy out leading the defense fleets where good old Beppe is losing one Battleship after another to DRF’s minion fleets. AWOL alliance chief makes a quick but fateful decision. He gives Director rights in the alliance to Puppetmaster. Imperial Order had about 30 player corporations (guild size groups). In total, they were more than a thousand characters strong. The Alliance Directors are the oligarchs who operationally run the Alliance on behalf of the member corporations and have access rights to control functions for the alliance.
The AXDX-F system is in trouble. DRF fleets have us boxed in. The call to arms has gone out, and we are paging our corp mates around the globe to login and join the fleet. We roust an Englishman working in Switzerland as a banker, an EMT in Canada, and dozens of other colleagues. We have hundreds in the defense fleet now.
That’s when the evil occurs. Puppetmaster was a spy working for the DRF. Puppetmaster uses his director role and hits the button to disband the alliance. In a heartbeat, the entire Imperial Order alliance disappears into history. The 30 corps independent corps that used to make up the alliance have no idea what’s happened. Diplomatic standings are all set wrong. We can’t tell friend from foe. That’s when the DRF capitals arrive and start smashing our station in AXDX-F. With our resistance broken, they capture the station in minutes. Now even our remaining supplies are lost. We are locked out of the station losing billions in ships and other assets.
Puppetmaster gets in local chat and starts talking trash. He’s been paid by DRF. All of the star systems that had been claimed by IO are now up for grabs and DRF is able to capture all remaining territory in the region without another fleet conflict. They mop up.
Sandbox evil in action – Puppetmaster and his DRF paymasters dominate.
Epilogue: Beppe and his corp mates spend a couple weeks marketing their PvP skills to other alliances seeking admission to a new coalition. They eventually move back to Delve “Thunderdome” and join the BrickSquad Alliance. Within a month, the hottest fighting in New Eden has followed them and there is a new war raging in Delve. Month's later, Old Jim transfers the Beppe character to one of his corp mates and retires from EVE Online.
(I posted this story with the hope that it displays some of the dynamic nature of a sandbox game for those that haven't experienced this sort of MMO. Pathfinder Online is going to be amazing!)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would say the only evil here was the character who was willing to betray those who trusted him. Evil characters could make a good living doing the dirty work the good characters can't do.
Each of the deities in Golarion have different behaviors, to me it is easy to define ones alignment by seeing which deity would most likely act as the character did. I actually think Puppetmaster's behavior is more in line with being chaotic, not necessarily evil.
According to the handbook, good characters generally promote peace, happiness and pleasure to others. Evil characters work for war and the infliction of pain, anguish, misery, corruption, and destruction upon others. Puppetmaster could probably rationalize that he ended the war...in so doing minimized potential pain and suffering (I bet he did not rationalize it in this way, just saying he probably could have).
I would say the only evil here was the character who was willing to betray those who trusted him. Evil characters could make a good living doing the dirty work the good characters can't do.
The massive problem here is that many players may view this as griefing and as such it is possible for that entire side of being evil to be prevented in the game at the whim of Goblinworks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would say the only evil here was the character who was willing to betray those who trusted him. Evil characters could make a good living doing the dirty work the good characters can't do.The massive problem here is that many players may view this as griefing and as such it is possible for that entire side of being evil to be prevented in the game at the whim of Goblinworks.
I actually think this is the type of player content Goblinworks will be trying to encourage. Jim was able to recall this story because it was something that impacted him and for good or bad, it changed the story of the game for many people...and the devs did not have to spend any time creating it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Jim story is one of several similar tales in EVE, tales of stolen trust and betrayal.
Almost always the player goal was doing that from the day he joined a corp or was turned after he had become disillusioned with his corp or alliance.
All acceptable (even if sometime it is too easy thanks to some hole in the corporation roles). The problem is that it don't seem what the OP want.
He want, to cite: "I mean the opportunity to play madmen, worshipers of dark gods, sorcerers who treat with daemonic entities, or that one guy who sneezes on his hands right before he grabs a handful of peanuts from the bar-bowl and has a knowing half-grin on his face when he does(;) ). "
I could be irritated with the player that disbanded my alliance or did stole from my corporation stores but I would recognise that he had a goal and a motivation.
Having my character die while going around because someone had spread a disease to hit random targets would generate another level of annoyance and frustration.
The Op seem to want to be the "mustache twirling, bunny torturing, rabid, slay everything in sight maniac's" that GrumpyMel cited.
EVE has plenty of LE Overlords, a large percentage of the CEOs of the big successful alliances would probably fall under that alignment.
The environment make it the "winning" alignment.
PFO will probably have his share of them, as it will be a PvP favourable game where large organizations will be a must if you want to get some goal (or at least it seem it will be so).
I don't see a way to make CE character that kill and create mayhem for the sake of doing that as a viable group of players. They will not work well in the large organizations needed to make a mark on the PvP landscape. They will not be useful for the enjoyment of the game by the majority of the players (while epic tales like the one Jim told will draw players to the game). If the system is managed in a way to make allowances for them so that the kind of behaviour they keep will be feasible the will become a pain in the ass for the majority of the players.
Essentially they are griefers and asking for a way to make griefing a wiable way to play don't seem a good idea.
I actually think this is the type of player content Goblinworks will be trying to encourage. Jim was able to recall this story because it was something that impacted him and for good or bad, it changed the story of the game for many people...and the devs did not have to spend any time creating it.I would say the only evil here was the character who was willing to betray those who trusted him. Evil characters could make a good living doing the dirty work the good characters can't do.The massive problem here is that many players may view this as griefing and as such it is possible for that entire side of being evil to be prevented in the game at the whim of Goblinworks.
Aye, don't get me wrong - hopefully that's the case and I would love to see this type of player content encouraged. Personally I don't see a problem with it, but at the same time Ryan has said that he didn't intend to follow in CCPs footsteps in regards to viewing griefing as a feature. I'm in a state of cautiousness as to what is and isn't regarded as griefing by Goblinworks at the minute.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Blaeringr, a couple of things.
First, I initially took your quote that KitNyx quoted above the same way he did. It really did sound like you were saying: "I'm telling you how it is, and if you don't see it the same way, then you just haven't tried hard enough." But I think there might actually be something else that you're trying to say, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and ask you to try to say it again, in a different way.
You also asked me "why" my definition of "good" is good, etc. I'm not going to really open up my spirit on these forums, there are a ton of haters, and it's not the kind of sanctuary that most people would recommend you try to find before you really bare your soul. However, I will say that it is because it is. I Am that I Am, if you will. We raise up certain spirits in ourselves, spirits that are as real as reason and love, and envy and all the rest. For thousands of years, when Man has sought to raise up the Holy Spirit within himself, he has found these truths.
As with most things that are "good", there are very often actual earthly rewards for doing them. This, I think, is where you come in with your arguments about individual survival or group survival, etc. But there are a great many times when doing Good actually results in the individual's death. And where doing Evil carries with it many earthly rewards. Good and Evil are transcendent. Attempts to define them as one would define mathematics or physics will always fail.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think this thread illustrates why you are not suppose to talk about politics or religion in "good" company. *grin*
Just for the record, Blaeringr and I chatted on the side and I admit to over reacting. I do not think he/she intended it as I interpreted, and even if so, a quicker and more civil way to end a discussion is to just not respond. My apologies to the community.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Why would it be hard for a chaotic evil organization to make a mark? You don't have to embody elemental chaos to be chaotic, so the evil resistance groups hiding in the shadow of the lawful good conquerers could easily exist, breaking prisoners out of jail and interfering with the supply lines of their enemy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Jim's story is interesting and kinda cool. The only real problem with something like that is where the player in question has "GM Style" administrative powers. In reality no one individual has the sort of God-Like administrative powers where they can entirely screw up an entire Nations "Diplomatic Settings" without active cooperation from alot of lower level individuals who would normaly have the ability to do something about it or catch it. They might be able to do something like give away a code cypher...or subtley order a specific unit out of place... but something like what was described really wouldn't be possible if the individual in question had to depend on real persons to update the IFF's (for example) of individual ships to recognize freind from foe.
For example, look at something like what happaned with Vichy France in World War II. When the Petain Government signed an Armistace with Germany...officialy all French troops and territories were supposed to become neutral to the Axis. In a computer game that might have been modeled by the 1 player who was "leader" of the Alliance flipping a switch to toggle the Diplomatic standing of the Alliance forces. The reality was anything but that...with individual commanders, units, ships and provincial governers deciding upon thier own what to do about those orders.....or read the account of what happaned with Greenland/Iceland in WWII.
No problem with players acting as spies/traiters in an "IC" manner....but alot of times what happens in such situations take advantage of "gamey"/meta-gaming style mechanics to cause havoc that really shouldn't be possible.
For example, the US wouldn't be disolved as a Nation (even considering Nukes) and U.S. forces be unable to communicate with each others or thier allies just by the President pressing a button on his own. That would take the ACTIVE cooperation of alot of people under the President to achieve.(In the Watergate Era, active duty forces were actualy instructed to ignore all orders coming from the White House at one point).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why would it be hard for a chaotic evil organization to make a mark? You don't have to embody elemental chaos to be chaotic, so the evil resistance groups hiding in the shadow of the lawful good conquerers could easily exist, breaking prisoners out of jail and interfering with the supply lines of their enemy.
Please, read the phrase as a whole, taking only half of it change the meaning of what I was saying:
I don't see a way to make CE characters that kill and create mayhem for the sake of doing that as a viable group of players.
Not all CE characters operate on the principle that making mayhem for making mayhem is fun and it is a goal by itself. But the OP is asking to cater to people for which doing mayhem for the sake of it is the only goal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why would it be hard for a chaotic evil organization to make a mark? You don't have to embody elemental chaos to be chaotic, so the evil resistance groups hiding in the shadow of the lawful good conquerers could easily exist, breaking prisoners out of jail and interfering with the supply lines of their enemy.Please, read the phrase as a whole, taking only half of it change the meaning of what I was saying:
I don't see a way to make CE characters that kill and create mayhem for the sake of doing that as a viable group of players.Not all CE characters operate on the principle that making mayhem for making mayhem is fun and it is a goal by itself. But the OP is asking to cater to people for which doing mayhem for the sake of it is the only goal.
Yeah, I agree with Diego here. Groups led by "madmen" who's sole intent is to cause mayhem....may be able to have some impact...but in general they aren't going to stack up well in terms of power or sustainability when compared with organizations who actualy place value in ORGANIZATION, espouse some level of DISCIPLINE and base their decision making on RATIONAL examination of their situation.
Take a thousand Jack the Rippers, throw them against a Roman Legion...and the Legion will walk away largely unscratched.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
"Doing mayhem for the sake of it" is chaotic neutral; if it is the only goal it is an attempt to embody chaos. They will have their chance, either as mercenaries or as weakly organized bandits. There will also be a place for evil characters, and good characters, and lawful characters.
If every character is equally good or lawful, none of them are. I agree that chaos and evil need to be more developed than stealing from beggars and orphans while burning down granaries, but evil characters will steal from blind beggars and will chaotic characters will burn down the Library of Alexandria for the lulz, if the player has that option.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Doing mayhem for the sake of it" is chaotic neutral; if it is the only goal it is an attempt to embody chaos. They will have their chance, either as mercenaries or as weakly organized bandits. There will also be a place for evil characters, and good characters, and lawful characters.
If every character is equally good or lawful, none of them are. I agree that chaos and evil need to be more developed than stealing from beggars and orphans while burning down granaries, but evil characters will steal from blind beggars and will chaotic characters will burn down the Library of Alexandria for the lulz, if the player has that option.
Actualy I think "Doing mayhem for the sake of it" fits Chaotic Evil more then it does Chaotic Neutral.
My impression of Chaotic Neutral is that the characters primary goal is to avoid any restrictions placed upon thier personal freedom of action, that would include entering into any situation, even willingly, that would place any sort of duty or obligation upon them. They simply resent any sort of restriction. They might believe that they should be free to take harmfull actions against others....but they don't have any particular motivation to undertake harmful actions, particulary without cause.
Chaotic Evil characters on the other hand, not only reject both externaly and internaly imposed codes of behavior, but they actively seek to do harm to others (i.e. "mayhem"). They derive some sense of satisfaction or pleasure from harming others and will seek out opportunities to do so, even when there is no neccesity for it.
(IMO) A Chaotic Neutral character might believe that they are not subject to any law which would prevent them from stealing food from a starving child or burning down a library, but they have no particular motivation to engage in such acts and are just as likely to feed the starving child or put out a fire at a library if it suited thier whim.
A Chaotic Evil character on the other hand would take food from a starving child only to throw it away and would push the child into the library before lighting it on fire. In the real world, the only people who really fit such a definition would likely be considered clinicaly insane. Definately not the sort who would be common in any sort of society, even evil or immoral ones...since they pose a danger to everyone, including themselves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is only my opinion...and a simplified one, but I use the test of whether greater long term pain or pleasure for others was intended with an action to decide whether it was Good or Evil. Neutral actions/characters have no intent either way. This is based on intent and is independent from actual results. This is why some characters can be evil, but always save the day and vice versa.
In my opinion, mayhem is chaos and chaos for the sake of chaos is by definition chaotic neutral because the only intent was increased chaos...no pain or pleasure for others intended. Bringing down a kingdom might have dire painful consequences for the general public, but might also have generally pleasurable consequences...the chaotic character did not care.
I don't think chaotic means divorced from understanding of the consequences...in fact, a clear understanding of cause and effect must be had to work to bring down a lawful order. So, I agree, a chaotic character that would throw a child into a library they are about to burn could only have intended pain on the child and therefore be evil...but I don't agree a chaotic character would arbitrarily toss the child in. I can envision three types, the kind who ensured the library was clear of people first (the chaotic good), the kind who sets fire without regard to those within (the chaotic neutral), and finally those who toss the child in only because the evening rush did not quite fill the library enough before lighting it (the chaotic evil).
I can also see the point about chaos as pure illogical action...I think that would be a separate type of chaotic neutral. (just as there are neutral that believe in preserving a balance, and there are "just don't be carin'" neutral).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From the SRD
Chaotic Neutral: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those others suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as he is to cross it.
Chaotic neutral represents freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
A CN character who is being oppressed by a LN society might very well "intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy", motivated solely by enlightened self-interest.
Evil characters typically aren't 'kick the dog' types. That's Bioware Evil (tm). Evil characters control an empire through fear and terror, but also make sure the trains run on time and that violent crime is the exclusive turf of the secret police.
This page has the info on alignments. It's pretty much canon for all DnD based games, as it hasn't really changed since it was adopted way WAY back in the day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29
Most players don't even play the alignment properly anyway, usually vacillating from one end to the other based on their current desire. Which is why being a Paladin is a chore. You have to work at it. And also why so many people scoff at it.
And an MMO is likely difficult to code for that. WoTC tried to do that in the Neverwinter series and failed miserably in my view. Self preservation is always ok, but making evil characters into good ones for trying to get the other people in town to go protect his butt was dumb dumb dumb. Even the most base guy knows that more people protecting his butt is a smart move, and ultimately the only reason he does it is out of selfish interest, not because he's noble. But the game treated it as being noble, which was dumb.
Evil and good are all about the approach and the reasons behind the actions. The other main thing is, good people won't perform evil acts to achieve an end, while evil characters can do both. Nothing keeps a dirt bag from being nice if it gets him what he wants in the end.
A CN character that tries to organize a campaign of chaos is already acting out of alignment. Organization is a hall mark of law. Also, just because you are CN doesn't mean you break laws all the time. Some of those laws also protect your life. Breaking laws just to break them is actually pretty evil.