Goblin Squad Member
|
Just trying to find out how many more of us are out there in the pre-game community. So basically if you plan on playing evil, just poke your head in.
Although the core of The UnNamed Company plans on being Chaotic Neutral, we have a good proportion (40% or so) that may have to be evil for class purposes (Assassins) and or preference. Of our remaining 60% I would imagine that we will occasionally slip into evil from time to time if the situation calls for it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One of my considerations for my DT would be an Evil character. Depends on whether a Dwarf fortress is going to be set up, what alignments are allowed there, etc. I'd like my alt to be a sort of foil to my main, a night-and-day difference between the two (like Bludd and his monk). That way when I want to play evil I can jump on him.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like Proxima Sin, I like to play characters that are close to my own alignment which is TN. However, I have been known in RL and in games to dip into 'evil' occasionally as well as 'good'. So my Main will probably do the same. If my interest and my Company/Settlement would be best served by me doing something evil, then so be it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My main, my DT and the chartered company myself and my friends will form will be LE. This seems as good a place as any to state that more and more I'm coming around to the view of Proxima Sin: If I choose a character and my core alignment is Chaotic Evil, why does the mechanical anvil fall on my head when I haven't done anything? I presume I would start with a 1000 reputation like anyone else-why is it assumed I will immediately start RPKing and following around people making real world insults? If I'm a CE Barbarian raider-a role which should be completely supported and would generate a lot of fun content-I don't expect to stroll into Fort Riverwatch and buy a Cinnabun but why would the training at my warcamp be any worse? I don't expect the barbarian horde to have a settlement with high DI structures-that makes sense-but I am saying that training for low rep evil characters shouldn't be less powerful or harder to get, it should be different. So, yes, it should be difficult or impossible for our CE raider to go get Fighter or Wizard training based on his low rep, but rage powers? Fiendish sorcerous bloodline powers? Negative energy channeling? Sneak attack training at Thornkeep? I gotta raise my reputation to get those? A CE player expects to travel to dangerous places to learn dark secrets, and understands he/she will never be welcome at Brighthaven. I realize a CE character will engage in unsanctioned pvp; probably hoping for some nice loot; and I understand that by their very nature griefers will probably end up CE with reputations of -5500 or worse, but that someone who roles a CE character is automatically a griefer who will commit actions that will cut them off from npc settlements at -2500, who made that rule? Heck, you could just worship Rovagug, declare a feud against a good chartered company and start the killin'. Completely under the rules.
I'm currently DMing for an evil party, and have played evil characters in the past. They can be pretty fun; the trick is to keep it to subtle scheming between PCs, and try to foster an "us against the world" attitude. It is best, of course, if they are smart enough to realize that indiscriminate murder will only bring wrath down upon their heads.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My main, my DT and the chartered company myself and my friends will form will be LE. This seems as good a place as any to state that more and more I'm coming around to the view of Proxima Sin: If I choose a character and my core alignment is Chaotic Evil, why does the mechanical anvil fall on my head when I haven't done anything? I presume I would start with a 1000 reputation like anyone else-why is it assumed I will immediately start RPKing and following around people making real world insults? If I'm a CE Barbarian raider-a role which should be completely supported and would generate a lot of fun content-I don't expect to stroll into Fort Riverwatch and buy a Cinnabun but why would the training at my warcamp be any worse? I don't expect the barbarian horde to have a settlement with high DI structures-that makes sense-but I am saying that training for low rep evil characters shouldn't be less powerful or harder to get, it should be different. So, yes, it should be difficult or impossible for our CE raider to go get Fighter or Wizard training based on his low rep, but rage powers? Fiendish sorcerous bloodline powers? Negative energy channeling? Sneak attack training at Thornkeep? I gotta raise my reputation to get those? A CE player expects to travel to dangerous places to learn dark secrets, and understands he/she will never be welcome at Brighthaven. I realize a CE character will engage in unsanctioned pvp; probably hoping for some nice loot; and I understand that by their very nature griefers will probably end up CE with reputations of -5500 or worse, but that someone who roles a CE character is automatically a griefer who will commit actions that will cut them off from npc settlements at -2500, who made that rule? Heck, you could just worship Rovagug, declare a feud against a good chartered company and start the killin'. Completely under the rules.
Yes, and another example that came to my mind lately was Drow. A completely Chaotic Evil society but I doubt anyone would call them uncivilized with inferior training. The lack of training in Chaotic settlements does not make sense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am going to be Good first and foremost. I have a lot of obligations on the table as well. But if I ever manage to have time to play my Destiny Twin, I am considering taking them towards NE or LE. But my priority will be with Good aligned efforts such as TEO and hopefully Brighthaven.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are Drow going to be a character choice some day? And maybe underground settlements to go with it.
I hope so. Honestly I hope we get more choices for the start of the game. Though my main will be human I was hoping for more of a choice for my Destiny's Twin. I am not so worried about the classes not being there since it's skill based and you can always train in something new but once you pick your Race it's done. Only having 3 choices in EE is really limiting. They should strive for more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are Drow going to be a character choice some day? And maybe underground settlements to go with it.I hope so. Honestly I hope we get more choices for the start of the game. Though my main will be human I was hoping for more of a choice for my Destiny's Twin. I am not so worried about the classes not being there since it's skill based and you can always train in something new but once you pick your Race it's done. Only having 3 choices in EE is really limiting. They should strive for more.
I believe at one point (cant find it) they said they would allow for one race change. Since there will only be the 3 starting choices. I will start elf or human, and just wait for the Half-elf to come out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe at one point (cant find it) they said they would allow for one race change. Since there will only be the 3 starting choices. I will start elf or human, and just wait for the Half-elf to come out.Are Drow going to be a character choice some day? And maybe underground settlements to go with it.I hope so. Honestly I hope we get more choices for the start of the game. Though my main will be human I was hoping for more of a choice for my Destiny's Twin. I am not so worried about the classes not being there since it's skill based and you can always train in something new but once you pick your Race it's done. Only having 3 choices in EE is really limiting. They should strive for more.
And EE technically isn't the start of the game it's when we have the minimum viable product to be able to get into the world and push buttons (yes, double entendre).
Proposition: The Cadre. An organization dedicated to being villainous, vile brutes and heathens bent on crushing enemies under bloody boot heel and old fashioned world domination; but in a super good-spirited and upstanding way. Even the merchant arm of the Cadre will mercilessly intercept your shipments, decimate your sales, and run you out of business to replace the goods and profits with their own; but they'll do it with a feud and always within the sandbox. Content for everyone.
And by the way, always declaring feud first IS NOT lawful for characters so shouldn't result in lawful shifts. It's lawful for players, and that's a big difference. Players are going through the steps ascribed by GW to initiate pvp with another group. The characters are just sitting around deciding, "Man I hate those guys, let's go f*#@&^n kill 'em!!".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm wondering if this is where factions can play a role. From a bandit / raider's perspective, if the Outlaw Council or the Brethren of Echo Woods were evil factions, and there was a Merchant / Trade faction, then many of our (evil) concerns would be answered with having a sanctioned, target rich environment.
All GW woukd have to do is add sufficient advantages tied to faction participation that opting out, although possible, would be as limiting as nit being a part of a PC settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm wondering if this is where factions can play a role. From a bandit / raider's perspective, if the Outlaw Council or the Brethren of Echo Woods were evil factions, and there was a Merchant / Trade faction, then many of our (evil) concerns would be answered with having a sanctioned, target rich environment.
All GW woukd have to do is add sufficient advantages tied to faction participation that opting out, although possible, would be as limiting as nit being a part of a PC settlement.
Personally I am all for that line of development. Although this recent comment seems to indicate that factions might be more of a "starter spark" and fade in importance.
Players won't have a persistent in-game effect on NPC factions. But unlike in a theme park game, the NPC factions will be the least important part of the territorial and political landscape of the world. They're just hooks to hang some storytelling on. Once you establish a place for yourself in a player Settlement the NPC factions will fade into the distant background of the world.
From:Thread for context
I certainly recognize that your best bet for the most success is to go about prepared for conflict even if you are not seeking it. That, in a way, you hold part of your own fate in your own hands. Through recognizing that this game is best played in a different way than some of it's audience have experienced.
Having said that, I am also intrigued by the idea of single or multiple groups (in concert) keeping some areas somewhat safer for non PVP combat enthusiasts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I plan on having an evil alt, but I am worried about there being overly burdensome limits on advancement.Yes and those of us who plan to have an evil main are doubly worried.
Right now the mechanics are working out that role playing Evil is just as bad as being a griefer or scammer which is the focal point of those other threads.
I Also plan on being evil, but just not evil for the sake of being evil, but for a reason, a greater purpose.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Right now the mechanics are working out that role playing Evil is just as bad as being a griefer or scammer which is the focal point of those other threads.I plan on having an evil alt, but I am worried about there being overly burdensome limits on advancement.Yes and those of us who plan to have an evil main are doubly worried.
No, at the moment Chaotic Evil is listed as "sucking", but not the other two evils (I expect NE will also be low on general power, but that hasn't been stated. LE has been stated to be a powerhouse alignment). Additionally, if you wanted them treated like griefers or scammers they would be banned from the game, not given mechanical penalties.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've said from day 1 it's simply impossible for me to consider alignment and reputation until I understand how it works in game. I've tried to wrap my head around it and I've tried to follow the dev quotes and blog posts on it but I just don't know. "Wait and see" policy for me.
Listing some various roles randomly:
Assassin
Merchant
Crafter
Gatherer/Harvester
Raider
Bandit
Brigand
Bounty-Hunter
Spy
Necromancer
Druid
Builder
Guard
Soldier
Rogue
Adventurer
Diplomat
Aristocrat
etc...
There will be actions that lead to G-E or L-C and HR-LR and frequency of pvp and choice of group. Too many variables for me to decide.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I play...
I usually end up close to LE, no matter what I play.
I was going to do an assassin type. No longer sure about that.
If necros can't amass an undead army, that's out.
Maybe just an a##$!@$ ranger, then? Dunno.
Seems everything is leaning towards the good side of things. The most benefit seems to be from being good.
If you want to play evil, the closest to the BBEG kind of evil you can get seems to be being a jerk.
I'm not interested in the game to be a griefer, but I do want to play a LE character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'll likely play my main as myself under a different name and reserve my DT for my intended TN Druid. So for the main my alignment will be determined by my behavior and my DT will be aligned by my role. If an evil character is needed I am confident I would spring for a third alt.
None of them will be named 'Being' as a simple matter of elementary security.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Seems everything is leaning towards the good side of things. The most benefit seems to be from being good.
This is because if there were no mechanical benefits to being good it would never be played. Being good involves giving up opportunities to harm your opponents in underhanded ways, helping others without personal gain, etc. Doing so in a competitive settlement-building MMO means you will be weaker than an equal settlement with Evil policies, who will kill you relentlessly, assassinate your leaders, and use every dirty trick in the book because none of it hurts their alignment. This is why Good has mechanical bonuses: because absent such bonuses we wouldn't have any long-standing Good-aligned settlements.
Now, some forumgoers have conflated the issue of Good vs Evil with Goblinwork's stated view that CE should suck, and assumed that all of Evil should suck, but that is simply not the case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Seems everything is leaning towards the good side of things. The most benefit seems to be from being good.This is because if there were no mechanical benefits to being good it would never be played. Being good involves giving up opportunities to harm your opponents in underhanded ways, helping others without personal gain, etc. Doing so in a competitive settlement-building MMO means you will be weaker than an equal settlement with Evil policies, who will kill you relentlessly, assassinate your leaders, and use every dirty trick in the book because none of it hurts their alignment. This is why Good has mechanical bonuses: because absent such bonuses we wouldn't have any long-standing Good-aligned settlements.
Now, some forumgoers have conflated the issue of Good vs Evil with Goblinwork's stated view that CE should suck, and assumed that all of Evil should suck, but that is simply not the case.
I don't think you know that for sure. From the blog:
Unrest: Unrest measures how unhappy your NPCs are, causing them to work less hard and decreasing crafting and training efficiency so they take longer. Unrest starts high for Evil settlements and low for Good settlements
Higher end structures, like tier 2 and 3 training and crafting facilities, require the settlement have its minimum Reputation set to certain levels to function. So if you want your town to have awesome training and crafting facilities, you have to set a high minimum Reputation to enter the settlement.
Looking at those two together you can't see what a major problem Evil settlements are going to have?
Lawful Evil Settlements don't want only Lawful Evils in their city, I'd imagine they want to cater to all evils to a degree. Otherwise they won't have very robust populations. As long as someone minds their P's an Q's in the city, Evil doesn't care what they do beyond their walls.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Seems everything is leaning towards the good side of things. The most benefit seems to be from being good.This is because if there were no mechanical benefits to being good it would never be played. Being good involves giving up opportunities to harm your opponents in underhanded ways, helping others without personal gain, etc. Doing so in a competitive settlement-building MMO means you will be weaker than an equal settlement with Evil policies, who will kill you relentlessly, assassinate your leaders, and use every dirty trick in the book because none of it hurts their alignment. This is why Good has mechanical bonuses: because absent such bonuses we wouldn't have any long-standing Good-aligned settlements.
Now, some forumgoers have conflated the issue of Good vs Evil with Goblinwork's stated view that CE should suck, and assumed that all of Evil should suck, but that is simply not the case.
As you say.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see the Evil's going to have some sort of "intimidation" structure, in order to bring that high starting Unrest under some measure of control. It may take the form of a temple selecting "random" folk for human sacrifice (although good luck getting that past international censors), a training hall for very large, very mean NPC guards (these pointed at the population, not enemies outside the walls), a headquarters for the secret police (encouraging everyone to report on their neighbours and families, or else face imprisonment or execution themselves), or any other thing polities have tried in our long ugly human history.
Please fill in your own favourite horror story.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see the Evil's going to have some sort of "intimidation" structure, in order to bring that high starting Unrest under some measure of control. It may take the form of a temple selecting "random" folk for human sacrifice (although good luck getting that past international censors), a training hall for very large, very mean NPC guards (these pointed at the population, not enemies outside the walls), a headquarters for the secret police (encouraging everyone to report on their neighbours and families, or else face imprisonment or execution themselves), or any other thing pariah states have tried in our long ugly human history.
Please fill in your own favourite horror story.
Mmmmm, all those sound delightful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes and those of us who plan to have an evil main are doubly worried.
I look forward to playing a LE character, and I have the same access to available game information as everyone here, and I do not see the cause for worry.
There is a large number of forum posters here are who are obsessed with taking every blog post or dev post and twisting the information provided to highlight a particular word or meaning, or to try to fit it into a preconceived framework - theory - systems or mechanic that they like/dislike, shoot down any poster who has a different interpretation or understanding, who deliberately bait others with hostility, poor word choices or insulting talk down. Every pronunciation by GW is a cause for gloom and doom, and every post (and even individual word) is evaluated independently (tree) instead of being place IN CONTEXT (forest) with the other provide information and with the understating that many game elements are Work In Progress (WIP) and To Be Determined (TBD).
All of that has created a very toxic environment for what is a very complex game in development with many components not fleshed out and not well enough described to justify so dire predictions and misinformation going on.
If you (in general) take a long view of the game design, the statements of the game developers as to what they want to achieve in this game, and the type of players and community they want to create, it is fair to say that evil players and organizations of all alignments are not only welcomed, but valued and necessary of the functioning of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think you know that for sure. From the blog:
Unrest: Unrest measures how unhappy your NPCs are, causing them to work less hard and decreasing crafting and training efficiency so they take longer. Unrest starts high for Evil settlements and low for Good settlementsHigher end structures, like tier 2 and 3 training and crafting facilities, require the settlement have its minimum Reputation set to certain levels to function. So if you want your town to have awesome training and crafting facilities, you have to set a high minimum Reputation to enter the settlement.Looking at those two together you can't see what a major problem Evil settlements are going to have?
Lawful Evil Settlements don't want only Lawful Evils in their city, I'd imagine they want to cater to all evils to a degree. Otherwise they won't have very robust populations. As long as someone minds their P's an Q's in the city, Evil doesn't care what they do beyond their walls.
Of course I don't know anything about the design for sure, none of us do.
The first quote is not taken in context. Evil settlements start with a higher unrest than good, that much is true. However, the part right after that says that a good settlement which has Evil stuff happening in it frequently will actually have a higher unrest than the evil settlements. So Evil just has a middling unrest, whereas good's can swing from low unrest to high depending on what people are doing in good's lands. This provides an avenue of attack for anyone looking to weaken a Good settlement.
The second quote has nothing at all to do with a Lawful Evil player's alignment. A LE settlement will have plenty of high reputation characters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think you know that for sure. From the blog:
Unrest: Unrest measures how unhappy your NPCs are, causing them to work less hard and decreasing crafting and training efficiency so they take longer. Unrest starts high for Evil settlements and low for Good settlementsHigher end structures, like tier 2 and 3 training and crafting facilities, require the settlement have its minimum Reputation set to certain levels to function. So if you want your town to have awesome training and crafting facilities, you have to set a high minimum Reputation to enter the settlement.Looking at those two together you can't see what a major problem Evil settlements are going to have?
Lawful Evil Settlements don't want only Lawful Evils in their city, I'd imagine they want to cater to all evils to a degree. Otherwise they won't have very robust populations. As long as someone minds their P's an Q's in the city, Evil doesn't care what they do beyond their walls.
Of course I don't know anything about the design for sure, none of us do.
The first quote is not taken in context. Evil settlements start with a higher unrest than good, that much is true. However, the part right after that says that a good settlement which has Evil stuff happening in it frequently will actually have a higher unrest than the evil settlements. So Evil just has a middling unrest, whereas good's can swing from low unrest to high depending on what people are doing in good's lands. This provides an avenue of attack for anyone looking to weaken a Good settlement.
The second quote has nothing at all to do with a Lawful Evil player's alignment. A LE settlement will have plenty of high reputation characters.
No it's not out of context, it says "IF" they do not take care to keep evil things from happening in their lands the Unrest "MAY" end up higher than an evil city. It says nothing about them frequently having higher Unrest. I don't expect that to be the norm for Good cities.
The second quote refers to the fact that it would not be smart for a LE city to set the reputation requirement too high. If it's too high it ends up being too restrictive for other evil alignments (who will most likely have lower reputations) and thus hurting their overall population. If they set their reputation requirement very high why wouldn't someone just go to a good city where there will be less Unrest to get better training? At the same time if they do not set it too high they will end up with inferior training by not being able to build Tier 2 and 3 facilities. It's a Catch-22.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It sounds like an evil settlement next to good one could cause the unrest in the good settlement without going to war to do it . A good settlement may not be able to use that tactic without the cost in alignment being to high. It will be interesting to see the kind of things you can do as an evil settlement that good settlements cant do, causing unrest in a good settlement sounds like great gameplay.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It sounds like an evil settlement next to good one could cause the unrest in the good settlement without going to war to do it . A good settlement may not be able to use that tactic without the cost in alignment being to high. It will be interesting to see the kind of things you can do as an evil settlement that good settlements cant do, causing unrest in a good settlement sounds like great gameplay.
That would be interesting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes and those of us who plan to have an evil main are doubly worried.I look forward to playing a LE character, and I have the same access to available game information as everyone here, and I do not see the cause for worry.
There is a large number of forum posters here are who are obsessed with taking every blog post or dev post and twisting the information provided to highlight a particular word or meaning, or to try to fit it into a preconceived framework - theory - systems or mechanic that they like/dislike, shoot down any poster who has a different interpretation or understanding, who deliberately bait others with hostility, poor word choices or insulting talk down. Every pronunciation by GW is a cause for gloom and doom, and every post (and even individual word) is evaluated independently (tree) instead of being place IN CONTEXT (forest) with the other provide information and with the understating that many game elements are Work In Progress (WIP) and To Be Determined (TBD).
All of that has created a very toxic environment for what is a very complex game in development with many components not fleshed out and not well enough described to justify so dire predictions and misinformation going on.
If you (in general) take a long view of the game design, the statements of the game developers as to what they want to achieve in this game, and the type of players and community they want to create, it is fair to say that evil players and organizations of all alignments are not only welcomed, but valued and necessary of the functioning of the game.
I agree with much of your post pertaining to tendencies of arguments to get petty, pedantic and personal on some of these boards. However, Giorgo, the developers have specifically stated that chaotic evil characters and their settlements are going to 'suck'. In modern parlance, this does not have a vague or variable meaning; it means something doesn't work or is not worth it. You wish to play LE-so do I and I wish you well. Our doom and gloom stems from the fact that a person may want to roleplay a cleric of Lamashtu all the way up to 20 merit badges. This player doesn't have to RPK, camp new players or go on racist rants in chat. I will repeat myself. Reputation can be seen as a pvp currency, to be saved and spent situationally-our cleric of Lamashtu doesn't attack just anyone, well perhaps a Paladin of Iomedae under the feud mechanic, but then sees a person who he/she thinks has a backpack full of adamantine. No feud. No war. Not a member of an opposing faction. Just spending (losing) a measure of rep to steal adamantine, because it's worth it. That is not meaningless pvp, that is a CE character being CE. If it's not a wilderness hex, probably gonna high tail it outta there with the criminal flag. I submit the only place this character should be able to get tier 3 training is a CE settlement or shrine.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It sounds like an evil settlement next to good one could cause the unrest in the good settlement without going to war to do it . A good settlement may not be able to use that tactic without the cost in alignment being to high. It will be interesting to see the kind of things you can do as an evil settlement that good settlements cant do, causing unrest in a good settlement sounds like great gameplay.
This is what I was trying to point out; there's an additional way to mess with Good settlements that you can't use against Evil settlements in the form of raising their unrest via Evil deeds on their property.
@Fiendish, your first quote did not take any of that into account; the part you quoted, taken on its own, seemed to indicate that Evil had a simple disadvantage when it came to unrest. I was just pointing out that it's not as cut and dry as that in the blog post; (opinion here) Evil seems to me to actually have an advantage with unrest, as it's one less avenue of attack they have to worry about, even if their value starts higher.
Sorry if it seemed like I was atatcking you or something, but all I'm saying is it's very likely that there will be very strong Evil organizations in game, as well as successful Evil characters. There are benefits and drawbacks planned for both sides of the Good vs Evil spectrum, and only looking at the benefits for Good and the drawbacks for Evil is skewing the public opinion on the system's fairness or balance. Many people seem to already have it in their mind that there's going to be no way to be successful as an Evil character (not saying you hold this view), and what I'm trying to say is, yes there will be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It sounds like an evil settlement next to good one could cause the unrest in the good settlement without going to war to do it . A good settlement may not be able to use that tactic without the cost in alignment being to high. It will be interesting to see the kind of things you can do as an evil settlement that good settlements cant do, causing unrest in a good settlement sounds like great gameplay.This is what I was trying to point out; there's an additional way to mess with Good settlements that you can't use against Evil settlements in the form of raising their unrest via Evil deeds on their property.
@Fiendish, your first quote did not take any of that into account; the part you quoted, taken on its own, seemed to indicate that Evil had a simple disadvantage when it came to unrest. I was just pointing out that it's not as cut and dry as that in the blog post; (opinion here) Evil seems to me to actually have an advantage with unrest, as it's one less avenue of attack they have to worry about, even if their value starts higher.
Sorry if it seemed like I was atatcking you or something, but all I'm saying is it's very likely that there will be very strong Evil organizations in game, as well as successful Evil characters. There are benefits and drawbacks planned for both sides of the Good vs Evil spectrum, and only looking at the benefits for Good and the drawbacks for Evil is skewing the public opinion on the system's fairness or balance. Many people seem to already have it in their mind that there's going to be no way to be successful as an Evil character (not saying you hold this view), and what I'm trying to say is, yes there will be.
Yes I realize the developers at this time are erring on the cautious side with their initial rules because they don't want unwanted PvP to get completely out of hand. I also realize the knobs and dials can be adjusted and will be adjusted during EE. I may sound like I am convinced its going to be horrible for evils but I'm not. I know I can't really judge it until I see it in action.
+1 here for playing an evil character.
