Evil kingdom

I know there are one or two evil CC kicking around out there, and Shadow Haven will accept anyone regardless of alignment. But has anyone mentioned starting and actual Evil(and more than likely lawful)player kingdom? I am also aware that should such a thing come into existence it would probably be sieged to hell and gone by all the good people that seem to be running around.

The good people running around are just tose of us willing or innocent enough to skyline ourselves.

Those who are savvy and intend to run evil keep a low profile for the most part, at least until you say something of interest to them.

Kind of hard to keep a kingdom low profile. Im not talking about charter companies here.

Shadow haven is an evil aligned community, and part of The Seventh Veil. We hope to have an evil aligned kingdom under our umbrella in the future.

I don't think alliging evil will be as bad as you think, Evil is more or less the more popular side in most games. I expect good to radiate out of Riverwatch, Evil to radiate out of the Echo Woods, and neutral to radiate out of Ft. Indomitable.

I don't think anyone can plan for a kingdom yet, it is probably going to involve multiple organizations working together, right now the two declared kingdoms(TEO&Pax) are around the settlement size with an optimistic look into the future. I'm guessing, from what Ryan has said, a settlement ranges from hundreds to (low)thousands of members, and kingdoms will have thousands of members, not something any organization has grown to yet.

When I come across these threads, asking for evil settlements, I think of this:

Dr. Evil: Well it's true! It's true! You're semi-evil. You're quasi-evil. You're the margarine of evil. You're the Diet Coke of evil. Just one calorie, not evil enough.

The question is, just how evil will evil be?

Will there be a Mordor? Or could a settlement be like a planes of Hell one of evil?

If making zombies is the depths of all that is heinously evil, then we are to witness Evil brought to you by the makers of Strawberry Shortcake.

I've considered trying it, but I'm not sure how much interest there is, at the moment.

I've thought, maybe start a LE CC that matches my ideas, and if it got any traction go from their?

I would suggest there is plenty of support for a LE CC. But someone or ones need to be dedicated enough to keep the concept alive for the next 18 months.

There is, of course, that.

Also, naming. I'm blatantly terrible at naming.

Lol, What are your ideas IronVanguard?

Well, I'm somewhat planning to run a hellknight character, so I was thinking a LE group that promoted Law above everything. Maybe not a Hellknight order (although a LE kingdom could certainly used them as law enforcement), but something along that vein of enforcing rules and laws at any cost. Probably an Oligarchy and Star Chamber governments, go for a council of evil, er, LAW, over a crown. Make lots of room for LN and NE types as well. Eventually once order is installed and we got some ground, we could go on to recruiting those more methodical types of evil.

Knowing me, I'd probably end up trying to RP a bunch of silly IC regulations, like licensing necromancy.

One of my character concepts is a Hellknight, I have ideas not dissimilar to yours. I'd be happy to head up the order under whatever settlement you feel would be appropriate.

I see order being imposed first then other compatible ideologies being accommodated in that ordered environment.

Lol licensing necromancy, love it.

"Excuse me sir do you have a permit for that zombie to eat brains in public?"

It's going to be rather hard to manifest true evil at the sado-masochistic serial killing / mass genocide / child sex slavery / torturing for fun / Apple level in an online game.

It's going to be rather hard to manifest true evil at the sado-masochistic serial killing / mass genocide / child sex slavery / torturing for fun / Apple level in an online game.

And now we all know what your table top sessions look like. Thanks for sharing a couple of those particularly disturbing images ;)

I don't understand the fascination with Lawful Evil, really.

Your high school teachers were lawful evil. The George Bushes were lawful evil. As an attitude, a fashion statement or a way of acting I am having trouble understanding the appeal.

Neutral Evil/Chaotic Evil though, that I could see as a lot of fun.

Neadenil Edam wrote:

It's going to be rather hard to manifest true evil at the sado-masochistic serial killing / mass genocide / child sex slavery / torturing for fun / Apple level in an online game.

And now we all know what your table top sessions look like. Thanks for sharing a couple of those particularly disturbing images ;)

The Perrenland/Iuz Living Greyhawk modules were full of such charming stuff. Lots of interesting moral choices like kill the innocent baby or let it be possessed and destroy most of the region, or kill the enslaved innocent girls raped and pregnant to a demon or let them die giving birth to a monstrosity :D

Every second player character seemed to be a Radiant Servant of Pelor.

I am interested in seeing how long it takes everyone playing this game to get over the good vs evil and move onto the " he has something I want, kill him with fire."

I am interested in seeing how long it takes everyone playing this game to get over the good vs evil and move onto the " he has something I want, kill him with fire."

I try to point out now and then that this is the focus of the game, rather than good vs evil, but from the number of alignment-related threads that keep popping up I think I'm talking to a bunch of walls under a 100-mile radius Silence spell ;)

I honestly hope that alignment is eventual viewed as an afterthought by the community. Something that you just have to keep in balance with what ever settlement you happen to live in while you do hat you want.

It's hard to be viewed as an afterthought when so many of the core mechanics revolve around it in an asymmetric way. If the mechanics were symmetrical there would be far less discussion around alignment. It's not like wearing nine different coloured t-shirts, it's all about encouraging ingame and metagame behaviour. Some people don't like being metagamed by the dev's I guess.

With regard to the LE 'fascination', its about being metagamed by the devs into acting like they want you to act in order to get an ingame benefit.

Some people are twisting and turning, trying to justify the asymmetric treatment in an in game context but it's too complicated for that really. Some people kick up a stink but the dev's feel they know best (maybe they do) and it doesn't look like things will change.

GW has to decide what they are trying to do and who they are trying to please (I think they already have) and stick with that. You can't please everybody and if you try you will probably end up pleasing nobody.

For my part I know what open PvP means to me.

The game system has to pretty well replace the role of the game master. I think the assymetrical approach to alignments is part of that. A GM will remind the Paladin he isn't supposed to kick dogs. Without alignment there isn't a way for the game to function like that and it is important because if a paladin behaves poorly he can no longer be a paladin, but only a weakened fighter without all the nice paladin buffs and powers. The Druid who behaves lawful good would lose his Druidic abilities. The Monk who behaves chaotically will find himself unable to dodge so well and have to start wearing armor to stay alive. The barbarian who organized himself out of chaos would find himself unable to rage.

If a computer is to find a way to emulate a human dungeon master it has to have a way to evaluate player performance. Alignment and Reputation must be part of that.

I see the issue as being that PnP players have to define alignment (to a degree) and everyone seems OK with the idea that Paladins must be LG, Barbarians chaotic, etc... that does not seem to be an issue.

The issues in contention in that not only can you no longer be a Paladin but

a) You may not be able to belong to your previous settlement. Now that is no big deal either unless the settlements are treat unequally and they are, that is the asymmetry that people are worried about.

It has been said that CE settlements will have 'crappy' settlements, LE settlements have 'less crappy' settlements. I realise that subsequently that has been glossed over due to widespread outrage from the crowd forgers.

Subsequently it was stated that LE high rep settlements will get high quality structures. I note however that it has not however been stated that LE settlements will get structures 'equalilent to' LG settlements.

and

b) Asymmetrical flagging systems, Champion in particular. Now I realise that evil characters be go 'Assassin' and get some advantage. Some people (including me) will not want to be assassins, sneaking around. That flagging system pushes alignments into pigeon holes. GW creating a new definition of what it is to be evil and then punishing people for it and I think this is what many PnP players will have issue with.

The evil character and the antisocial player concept are being combined in game. I think people feel they are going to be punished for being an evil character even though they are not an antisocial player.

The game does have to replace the Game Master and the Game Master doesn't appear to want you to be playing an evil character.

Personally I have always disliked the way in many games people can take the easier path of opting for evil and then swagger about showing off and being annoying with no downsides.

I have played Evil before, in particular Drow on several occasions online but never in the trivial "Evil = kill and steal stuff while looking cool" sense.

I actually like the way this is going. Evil will be interesting to play rather than just a shortcut to pimpin' up your character and smacking people down.

To me Neutral Evil is by far the most dangerous.

CE tends to in fight and not really have lasting power. They do make these big splashes that make people gasp but they are dead soon after.

LE has the longevity to actually accomplish empire building but if they take law as seriously as evil they leave ways for people to work within the system.

NE on the other hand is pure greed. They are the long thinkers and would be just as willing to show fealty to a settlement one minute and sell it out for a better position later. They lack the "code" of the LE character and self destructive nature of CE.

If they can accomplish this feeling in PFO I will be shocked. Not in the meta-game portion because, there will be some ruthless bastards that think only of themselves, but in game. To me it seems that NE will be those who are able to balance criminal and lawful acts and like to PvP. It also looks as if atoning for your sins won't be too bad if you alternate your gains fairly regularly. Go kill merchants for a day or 2 then go PvE or play your twin for a day or 2. Not really a big deal.

Just be good and go champion. If you can find an evil character to whale on there will be no need to atone for anything and you can swagger about all you please.

I am in favour of more symmetry. Give evil a champion flag too, get rid of the assassin flag, stop trying to equate in game evil with metagame antisocial behaviour.

To me getting penalties for doing the same action as another player who gets none, may be interesting (for role playing reasons) or it may be a pain in the arse.

Give evil a champion flag too, get rid of the assassin flag,

PLEASE OH PLEASE do NOT get rid of the assassin flag! I was very happy to see it (as someone who actually plans on being an assassin, the extra stealth and crit buff brought tears of happiness to my eyes

I agree with Ludy that I think LE may be the most interesting and challenging alignments to play. I'm not certain how well the alignment will be able to maintain a settlement, let alone a kingdom, but as individuals or small CCs, I think they will be great fun to play...living off opportunity, seeming neutral enough until they pull a decent con or make a profitable double-cross, then moving on to the next area to rinse, dry, and try it again.

I can totally see how it would be beneficial for you (Tigari).... but for me it is just a token gesture at evenhandedness. I think you are safe, I don't see things changing too much from where they are now re alignment/settlements/flags. Everything is so interelated that I don't think GW will be keen on reworking what they have done thus far.

I hope it works out well.

Heres a question, Can't evil people put on the Challenger flag, and be able to do everything that a good person can with it? (I may have missed something somewere about the flag, not making this possible)

The Champion flag is for good aligned players only. I am not aware of a Challenger flag.

As I understand it evil characters can always attack anyone else but will take a rep hit (and an evil which is not an issue) unless the attacked character has an appropriate flag.

This means it is harder for an evil character to keep their rep up. So if you want hte rep you can't kill people often (the supposed advantage of being evil) and you can't use the champion flag. Even if you do this you will only end up with "less crappy" structures in your settlement than a CE settlement)

If you are good you can use the champion flag and do whatever you like (to anyone brave enough to be evil).

In theory they can just add more long-term flags, and not have to replace assassin or anything.

@ Ironguard

Too many flags already! If I had a penny for every flag idea that had been suggested....

Also there must be some space on the screen for something other than flags.

GW hasn't been concerned with equitability between good and evil really, near as I can tell. The belief appears to be that there will be more than enough people who will go the evil route.

Further, there are mechanical advantages built in: I can just imagine an evil player's cries of shock and dismay that they are considered even more evil when they kill somebody. That is a pretty big hit if you were trying to play good, but for evil? Not so much.

Ryan has actually come out and said imbalance is more dynamic than balance. Evil will have the numbers. And really, do you actually believe Good will outnumber evil?

My understanding is that LE and LG installations will be pretty equivalent. Different probably, but equivalent.

The Champion flag is for good aligned players only. I am not aware of a Challenger flag.

As I understand it evil characters can always attack anyone else but will take a rep hit (and an evil which is not an issue) unless the attacked character has an appropriate flag.

This means it is harder for an evil character to keep their rep up. So if you want hte rep you can't kill people often (the supposed advantage of being evil) and you can't use the champion flag. Even if you do this you will only end up with "less crappy" structures in your settlement than a CE settlement)

If you are good you can use the champion flag and do whatever you like (to anyone brave enough to be evil).

Yea, meant champion lol, thanks for the correction :D (although renaming it to Challenger could be a good way to make it more for everyone.

I don't see it as an advantage if one actually has to kill someone to maintain ones alignment and has to take a rep hit at the same time, that is a disadvantage. Not great for those evil crafters who already have to contend with varying degrees of crappiness related to facilities.

It is not a hit to a good player because they take the champion flag and can do whatever they like to evil characters (if there are any).

I'd like to know were you got your understanding from Being. My understanding is that Ryan said LE settlements would be less crappy than CE settlements, then after a barrage of outrage from the community came out with a less contentious statement saying LE settlements would have the 'advantage' of being evil and have high quality facilities without actually saying they would be equal to LG settlements. It defused the situation but didn't actually withdraw the statements which were at the heart of the argument.

I don't understand the fascination with Lawful Evil, really.

Your high school teachers were lawful evil. The George Bushes were lawful evil. As an attitude, a fashion statement or a way of acting I am having trouble understanding the appeal.

Neutral Evil/Chaotic Evil though, that I could see as a lot of fun.

Nah. The Bushes were Lawful Good, maybe not very good at it in the long run, but they were good.

Lawful Evil seems more to be the Mafia. Strict Code of "Ethics", internal law, but little morality outside of their organization.

I agree the NEs of the world will be the most dangerous and unpredictable...well, maybe predictable in the greed and uncaring attitude with regards to law and life. But sadly, even these lost souls are needed to provide variety.

...LE settlements would have the 'advantage' of being evil and have high quality facilities without actually saying they would be equal to LG settlements....

Equivalent is different from equal. I didn't say I had information that LE facilities will be equal to LG facilities, I said equivalent.

It was said that the highest level LE facilities might feature demons and devils where LG feature angels and LG Planar beings. Those are equivalent.

But let's just cut to the chase: I feel I can infer that you intend to play evil, and your mission here is to argue that because LE might not mirror LG the end result will be mechanical imbalance, right?

Yet you and I both know that Evil will attract more players than good. Evil will outnumber Good. Factor in the relatively flat power curve and you have evil overbalancing against good dramatically in direct proportion to population differences.

Where population distribution will be asymmetrical the mechanics can be expected to display a corresponding opposite asymmetry.

The projected outcome where LE is a mirror of LG results in significant advantage for evil. The likelihood of players playing successfully as LG is less than the likelihood of players successfully playing LE, and the population of the Evil and Chaotic spectra is very likely to be greater than the population of the Lawful and Good spectra. Therefore, while risk management counsels that the relative and respective power variables should be adjustible in order to account for variance or deviance from the design's intent, the mechanics should at least initially favor the alignment that will be most challenged.

So, bottom line, my finding is that your worry is without significant merit and the system can and most likely will be built in a manner that affords the devs to adjust as needed and according to metric values rather than subjective bias.

Zolanoteph wrote:

I don't understand the fascination with Lawful Evil, really.

Your high school teachers were lawful evil. The George Bushes were lawful evil. As an attitude, a fashion statement or a way of acting I am having trouble understanding the appeal.

Neutral Evil/Chaotic Evil though, that I could see as a lot of fun.

Nah. The Bushes were Lawful Good, maybe not very good at it in the long run, but they were good.

Lawful Evil seems more to be the Mafia. Strict Code of "Ethics", internal law, but little morality outside of their organization.

I agree the NEs of the world will be the most dangerous and unpredictable...well, maybe predictable in the greed and uncaring attitude with regards to law and life. But sadly, even these lost souls are needed to provide variety.

Oh man! Not even going there, nope not gonna do it. I will say that propaganda is a powerful tool. Edit: And I will say Family Secrets by Russ Baker, good book if you want to know the truth... Ok nuff about that

Phyllain wrote:

I am interested in seeing how long it takes everyone playing this game to get over the good vs evil and move onto the " he has something I want, kill him with fire."

I try to point out now and then that this is the focus of the game, rather than good vs evil, but from the number of alignment-related threads that keep popping up I think I'm talking to a bunch of walls under a 100-mile radius Silence spell ;)

Indeed, the fundamental factions of the game are "us" vs "them". But acknowledging that probably means living with the 'evil' label.

I think evil will outnumber good not because evil is cooler or better, but because the main driving force for so many players will be greed and selfishness (*). Being labeled as evil without having made any effort to deserve it is a uncomfortable possibility for many players who then prefer to redefine evil rather than change their ways. We quite simply want tell ourselves we are the good guys when we kill other good guys to get their stuff.

(*) We are paying for entertainment after all, why should we pay to do things in game that do not benefit us? I do not in any way suggest greed/selfishness is gamers' main driving force outside the game, only that we are rational.

In response to the people who say that good will be outnumbered by evil. You may be correct a year or two into the game, but at the start good will have far more numbers than evil. Unless there are a large number of evil players who are just lurking and all these good charter companies are just empty shells.

In response to the people who say that good will be outnumbered by evil. You may be correct a year or two into the game, but at the start good will have far more numbers than evil. Unless there are a large number of evil players who are just lurking and all these good charter companies are just empty shells.

For the longest while after EE it will not be a significant factor whether good or evil is more numerous. We will only have just begun building. Most likely population imbalance will not be significant until we are fielding armies and going to war.

Finally my recommendation is to not try and count who will be of which alignment judging from forum posters because most of those intending to play are not posting, only reading.

We have no idea.

What I am saying is that it is actually impractical for any player or nation to play 'evilly'. It is more practical to be good aligned and then jump out and do evil deeds once and a while or in the case of the champion flag and evilly aligned victums whenever you like.

One can actually be engage in evil behaviour as a good aligned entity and gain the benefits of being good aligned.

This may be exactly what GW is looking for. I think it will be a great loss to the game if able and skillful players end up being metagamed into being good aligned and we lose the flavour of the evil cultures.

I am as yet undecided as to the alignment of the settlement I would like to be a part of, largely because of the asymmetric and unbalanced treatment of differently aligned settlements and characters.

Okay. I don't think many will be surprised by your conclusion: it has been openly discussed before and you are not alone in your perspective.

I personally don't think it is going to play out the way you think it will but I'm not going to try and play your game for you.

I think you have missed a couple of points, but I have been wrong before and am unafraid of being wrong again, so long as I am willing to try.

I honestly hope that who goes to war with who isn't based off player alignment in the long run. And I hope you are right about the balance of players at launch.

I honestly hope that who goes to war with who isn't based off player alignment in the long run. And I hope you are right about the balance of players at launch.

Right now alignment is all we have to look at in terms of who might be in conflict with who. Once we get in the game though we will have land, resources and geographic features like say a nice flat hilltop overlooking a large area of roadway. All these things can become points of contention between groups and may end up with battles being fought for control of these points.

Honestly once the game starts I don't see alignment playing much of a part in the events that take place within the game.

We can hope Val.

I think it is one thing to say your character will be a specific alignment here in the threads, but role playing it successfully enough to stay that alignment within the rule set in which we have chosen to play will be something completely different (no reference intended). The best of luck to us all.

Lawful Evil seems more to be the Mafia. Strict Code of "Ethics", internal law, but little morality outside of their organization.

The traditional example given of Lawful Evil is the NSDAP and the Third Reich.

Just as a traditional example of the polar opposite, Chaotic Good, is Mahatma Gandhi.

I think it is one thing to say your character will be a specific alignment here in the threads, but role playing it successfully enough to stay that alignment within the rule set in which we have chosen to play will be something completely different (no reference intended). The best of luck to us all.

Quite true. I intended on playing a CN character, but being as the settlement I'm joining is NG, that alignment won't fly, so ill have to choose N or perhaps even NG. I do see someone wanting to be LG having to work to keep that alignment, maybe more work then they want to put into it. Certainly more work then I would want to put in.

Harad Navar wrote:

I think it is one thing to say your character will be a specific alignment here in the threads, but role playing it successfully enough to stay that alignment within the rule set in which we have chosen to play will be something completely different (no reference intended). The best of luck to us all.

Quite true. I intended on playing a CN character, but being as the settlement I'm joining is NG, that alignment won't fly, so ill have to choose N or perhaps even NG. I do see someone wanting to be LG having to work to keep that alignment, maybe more work then they want to put into it. Certainly more work then I would want to put in.

CG flies well with a NG settlement as well.

Handy if you want to be a cleric of Gorum (CN deity) to get the broadsword and domains as CG will be much easier to maintain than TN.

What I believe are the legitimate concerns of players (myself included) in regards to the rep/align system can be reduced to two. That even a well-run and high rep LE settlement will have less useful structures than its' good aligned equivalents and that a CG char must spit in the holy water or run away with a chicken every now and again to maintain their alignment. Any word yet that they've changed the absurd notion that one becomes more lawful by logging out/doing nothing?