Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think anyone is contesting the validity of players being opponents and antagonists, or that violence can't be used in a game like this. The issue is how do you structure it so that the interactions are meaningful? Ryan just posted about this here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Playing a Good character for PFO and usualy do so for most games but I've seen Evil characters played well. There are 2 keys I think to playing a well done Evil character:
1) Remember to seperate the Player from the Character. Acting with the intent to make another Character suffer is one flavor of "Evil". Acting with the intent to make another Player suffer isn't Evil it's griefing. In practice you can't control the other Players emotions and actions performed against thier characters (robbing, killing) may sometimes make them unhappy as a player. You can't control that, but what you can control is how you behave and communicate in venues that are clearly OOC. Example your character saying something cruel to thier characters before you attack them may be "Evil", PMing them afterwards about how you are going to curb-stomp them every time they logon is not being "Evil" it's greifing as there is no way to interpret that other then you as a player communicating to the other player. In point of fact, the best PLAYERS of "Evil" characters I've seen often used OOC communication channels to let the other PLAYER know that there were no hard feelings after their character had commited a harmfull act if that other player was unkown to them.
2) "Evil" does not equate with "rabid". "Evil" generaly has goals and will act to see those goals realized. Sometimes those goals are pretty nasty (see the undead rule the world) sometimes they really aren't so much (avenge the wrongful death of a loved one). One of the biggest difference between "Good" and "Evil" is that "Evil" will usualy pursue the most expedient means toward achieving that goal, no matter what that means is. Very often the most expedient means toward achieving a goal is NOT direct violence or hostility and it's almost never random violence or inflicting harm for harm's sake.
"Lawfull Evil" characters usualy even have some sort of code that they follow. That code may be pretty twisted (e.g. They are willing to murder anyone but they will never do it in front of the victems family) and will often follow that code even in defference to the most expedient means toward thier goal.
If we look at one of the classic "Evil" archetypes, the Assasin, who by definition in the PnP rules are "Evil". They tend to have a pretty basic goal....getting paid. It would be a pretty crappy Assasin that went around randomly killing people they encountered. That doesn't help them get toward thier goal (they don't get paid for killing people who aren't thier victem) and entails needless risk (it might draw unwanted attention, one of the people they target might actualy be able to do some harm to them). A skilled assasin will kill only the target they are getting paid to kill...as that is the most efficient way to achieve thier goal (getting paid)....if someone else gets in the way of that happening...they MAY kill them, or they MAY simply find some means of distracting them...whatever is most expedient and entails the least risk to accomplishing thier goal.
Anyway, that's my take on things. I look forward to crossing swords with some of you (well played) "Evil" folks in game...if the opportunity presents itself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally I think the politician angle is better as long as it is a secret that the bard owns the museum and he is posing as an upsatanding, but outraged, citizen.
I prefer villains who position themselves as heroes. Hopefully that is the way my alter ego is coming across, who is based on a PnP character I want to play in Pathfinder Online, I just need to cement a class for him!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Villains are villains and heroes are heroes. Trying to set a series of guidelines for behaviors, just opens the door for people that are immature players that like to greif to target griefing behavior. In all honesty, evil and good come in all flavors and sizes. Trying to tell people how to play their characters is not good in any sense of the word. At a table I'd call it meta-gaming. If a player is playing an alignment that doesn't match what's on paper, it's up to the GM to correct, here I'm guessing it will be handled more in something like Light Side/Dark Side from SW:TOR/KOTOR kind of setup. It would be like setting guidelines that in a duel the good player should never land a finishing blow on an evil character because that isn't the right and good thing to do.
Good and phrases like "for the greater good" are all up to a level of interpretation, as such, I think trying to force this kind of outline on someone, or a guild of evil is not really something that will work. Players will do what they want, when they can, if they feel like it. That's a part of the beauty of the sandbox concept. The end goal is that players will unite and there will be more good then bad, the good will have better rewards as I understand it, and to top that off, it sounds like a hard thing people will be striving for.
While evil, is expected to be in smaller number and can have a hefty price to it if you grief in certain areas. But still, having an evil super power that opposes a good super power or super powers, is that so bad? To have antagonists that can be more clever then a planned script can be? Is that not more the ultimate challenge and part of what you are looking for in the game? It seems like this post is asking those that would like to play evil to tie their hands, that's not much of a challenge, that's being idealistic. That evil will bend to the wills of the good. This is not an attack on anyone, but in all actuality, as someone that has run a few games, players will do what they want and normally it's up to the GM to show them the errors of their ways with the harsh realities of the world striking back. For this kind of game, it almost feels like it's left to the players.
A Good example of this mentality would be an anime still releasing in Japan called Sword Art Online. I think they do a great job of capturing the psychology of online gaming. Though you'd have to find the fan subs to watch, unless you are fluent in Japanese. It sort of highlights this kind of thing in it's story. There's a goal to the game but still evil players/greifers still arise.
What makes what one player finds to be fun wrong in comparison to another? I agree greifing can be super annoying. I've played on PVP servers on multiple games and when someone gets it in their head to continuously attack you, it can be a pain. But some people find that to be fun. When does one person's fun get to impede on another's? When is it OK? This post seems like it's trying to draw the line on that. Sword Art Online addressed it by having characters have a Sim's like marker above their head, Green means no crimes committed, Orange meant a crime was committed and Red was out right murder, or PKing. From there, players could decide how they wanted to respond to players that were marked. This isn't meant to say this post isn't a good idea, it's more to argue in the other way and refine what is attempting to be said.
Evil comes in all shapes and sizes. The things stated here are great for around a table. I agree with a lot of them very much so, in MUCS and chat rooms, but once you add real time high action, if it's a PVP setting I would be surprised if someone commented OOC "I'm evil, no hard feelings, you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time." They're probably going to be fighting off someone else or something. Personally I expect a sort of Horde Vs Alliance mentality from WoW, good will claim it's better to be good and evil will claim it's better to be evil and the lines will slowly be drawn by players, not the game. Someone that kills often, as they like, and continuously kills a character, while griefing, would fit Chaotic Evil in my book. It is a type, certainly not the only way, but a type none the less. Honestly, I think it would be great if there was a wanted/ransom system in the game where, if someone is bad enough, players can put a price up for that person, it's a targeted level of balance and something that would happen in the setting, wouldn't it? Just as well, Evil settlements could have their target's of good. I think having systems in the game as a deterrent as opposed to stating player behavior should be to X standard. In an MMO you will find immature players. That's a sad fact, and unless you can find something to make them want to change, they're not going to. I'm going to stop rambling now. Sorry for the wall of text. Nice topic though. Really gets one thinking.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So with evil being a possibility, would it be possible to unlock races to play if you are evil enough? You make that pact and perhaps undergo a quest of some sort that allows you to reincarnate as something else? I'm playing in an evil tabletop campaign presently with races from the Advanced Race Guide, are those races something that may be added later? I'd love to play a Tiefling or a Strix (yes I know these are not excessively evil) at some point later down the road. Then again. I'm the kind of person that looks at a game and says, "I have to play a human? I'm already a human, I want to be something else in my fantasy world." There are probably issues under that, but still. I'm not likely to play a game where the race choice is only and mostly humans. And changing the size, shape, or adding pointy ears, doesn't make them less human. I'll be happy with the game to start in a classic sense, but I'd really like to play an monstrous humanoid or outsider at some point.