Lack of evil


Pathfinder Online

301 to 331 of 331 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite of Fidelis wrote:

If you can (I can) accept that evil is not "Grief play", then what is it? Is it a more aggressive (combat) approach in the play? That doesn't seem to fit. At least not so simply.

The vast majority of player I've known who actually chose to play evil had nothing at all to do with behavior that would be considered griefing. Back in my UO days, there were whole huge guilds on Catskills (The Shadowclan Orcs, The Undead of Necropolis, The Crimson Alliance, United Pirates, and the Knights of Arcane Steel) that were as well structured, well governed, and as strictly disciplined (especially if a member got out of hand) as any other group. Their members and leadership cared as much or more for the community, and knowing their actions might be misinterpreted, they monitored their members' behavior better than most other guilds.

Bringslite of Fidelis wrote:
Is it just RP? Doesn't seem to fit perfectly either...

But why not? I've known plenty of RPers who RPed Evil and had no interest in PvP. Evil merchants, messengers, witches, spies, etc. Or, as with one character I played, they may only be aggressive towards other characters who's players are "in" on the conflict and welcome the interaction (even if they don't always know when the aggression is coming).

Bringslite of Fidelis wrote:

So what is playing Evil?

I think it is a mix of the above. As part of that, being more aggressive than other players, it is fine if 1/2 or more of the sandbox is not evil.

So why not play evil? It is fun for short stints to change things up (IMO). It is not so fun to think of playing it full time for several years. I just don't dig aggressing against those minding their own business. I just don't dig aggressing for aggression's sake.

On the other hand, for me, I can get enjoyment and sustain that enjoyment in playing a "Good Guy" for years. There will be plenty of opportunities to go after "Bad Guys". Plenty of opportunity to wage war against unrepentant aggressors. YMMV.

I think part of the issue is that people assume playing evil equates to being overtly aggressive. As people have said in other threads on this topic, much of the time, Evil can and should be subtle. Like Keyser Söze, the best Evil might be the one you never suspected.

Also, a great deal of what any character, Evil or not, will do in the game will have no alignment associated with it. An Evil character crafting a sword won't likely do anything different from a Good crafter crafting a sword. An Evil harvester won't swing the pickax any differently than his Good counterpart.

I still think the largest stumbling block seems to be the assumption that Evil characters will be constantly doing evil deeds, being overtly aggressive, forever trying to harm/cheat/steal/etc. But just as in real life, if you're being that much of a constant pain to everyone, at some point the posse comes out to string you up and your life gets very difficult indeed. In fact, most of the well played Evil groups I have known knew how not to overdue their evilness or overtax their Good opponents.

It takes skill to play evil well, and I have always viewed is as a sort of special responsibility - one certainly not to be abused. But if you're up for the challenge, it can be all kinds of fun, not just for yourself, but for the Good guys who you help entertain.

Goblin Squad Member

There has never been a lack of evil in any game I have ever played. Evil always bubbles to the surface, as it will in the River Kingdoms. Some players role play it, some just can't help themselves. It comes with a large population that a portion will not be on the side of good (it's a natural curve, even if the peak might not be right in the middle). Evil will be part of the content.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@ Hobs

No one is arguing whether "Evil played well" (and within the favorable game parameters) is bad. It is excellent. It adds an additional element to the reasons for conflict (in an RP sense) that is beyond gain for gain's sake.

Much of what you describe seems like pretty tame evil... Professing to be evil and gathering or crafting, but never DOING evil is fine. I hope that 50% of the evil population roles that way! ;)

We aren't in game yet, but what groups do you see as having an aggressive stance? The evil or near evil. I am well aware that killing a gatherer and taking his 30 minutes worth of work is not recognized as evil (in this game) if you do it right.

To imply that Evil and Good will likely play very similar games, seems a stretch because these "Evil or near evil Groups" will (almost for sure) be the game's major aggressors. That is fine. I hope that we will all have a good deal of fun. :)

I still would rather play (as a regular thing) trying to build in peace and defending those that do also. "Being mean" (even for great RP) just isn't sustainable (for me) in a long term way.

I won't derail your topic more, but you did ask: "Why not play evil?"

Because....reasons.

Edit: Just want to add something. When I talk to people about PVP and being a good guy in this game, it is almost always focused on chasing down and hunting bandits and opportunity gankers. Evil Alignment is not really a point in the discussion.

Goblin Squad Member

Don't underestimate the game's built in drivers for conflict. 2 good guilds both need the same hex, there's quite possibly going to end up being some aggression.

As one of the devs commented, just because people go into the game with good intentions doesn't mean that that's how things will play out: the dark side is tempting for good reason, and staying lawful good will require commitment and sacrifice.

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:

Don't underestimate the game's built in drivers for conflict. 2 good guilds both need the same hex, there's quite possibly going to end up being some aggression.

As one of the devs commented, just because people go into the game with good intentions doesn't mean that that's how things will play out: the dark side is tempting for good reason, and staying lawful good will require commitment and sacrifice.

If that is for me, do not worry. When time comes to grow or die, and diplomacy and creativity fail, there will probably be conflict. Alignment has little meaning then. No one is so foolish as to doubt that.

Righteous valor, justice, and honor; the hardest road.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite,

I've never found discussion, even respectful disagreement, a derailment of the topic. :)

Sure, there will be people who choose to play Evil aggressively. They should exist and they will exist. They play the group you might fear. The group that gets your heart racing when you see their guild tag floating over their heads as they ride towards you. Imagine the reaction of villagers along the North Sea when the Viking longboats were spotted heading towards the coast.

But for me, which is why I would always rather have potential human combatants than NPCs and mobs, there is still interaction with that bad guy. There is a chance to negotiate, to haggle, or at least a chance in the future to avenge yourself upon him (personally, with bounties, assassin contracts, etc.). There is a chance to develop a story of ongoing conflict that transcends whacking the mob or defeating the same dungeon boss for the tenth time.

All in all, nothing beats an enemy with another player behind the monitor. In a fantasy RP MMO, there is at least a chance that the aggressor might be playing a role and not just being a jerk. At the very best, that bad guy is someone you may even know and respect. That's what we had in UO - arrangements where we knew we would be at odds, often within the context of a larger, player made story-arc, and when the day's fighting was done, you could hop on ICQ and say, "Good fight...you got me this time...I'll get you next." I've experienced that - its works - and it great fun.

Goblin Squad Member

We are talking about two different kinds of evil play here, and yet I agree with you at the same time. :)

It won't save you if I catch you harming innocents, though.

En guard! ;)

Goblin Squad Member

If I'm attacking innocents, two things are true...

Either someone hacked my computer, or I deserve to get attacked. :)

If I play a bad guy, I can guarantee he'll have more important things to do than attack innocent people.

Goblin Squad Member

EoX Hobs wrote:

If I'm attacking innocents, two things are true...

Either someone hacked my computer, or I deserve to get attacked. :)

If I play a bad guy, I can guarantee he'll have more important things to do than attack innocent people.

Oh great. A Boss/Mastermind encounter!

Goblin Squad Member

First off, no one is innocent. Second... I lost my train of thought.

One of the biggest differences between Evil and Good is that Evil tends to be Proactive and Good is Reactive. Not for everything but the vast majority of stories go that way.

Goblin Squad Member

Ravenlute wrote:

First off, no one is innocent. Second... I lost my train of thought.

One of the biggest differences between Evil and Good is that Evil tends to be Proactive and Good is Reactive. Not for everything but the vast majority of stories go that way.

Exactly my point. That is why it is fine in an MMO (with no death) if evil is outnumbered.


I look forward to the tools available to the evil masterminds that will be present in the community. I once covertly took over a set of guilds in another mmo (and quickly got bored and decided to tell three separate players they are the new leader and publicly stepped down and watched the internal chaos ensue.) I can't wait to start the slow process of converting the game into my own personal play thing. I just hope the game gives plenty of opportunities for anonymous gameplay so it's easier to work from the shadows.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite of Fidelis wrote:
EoX Hobs wrote:

If I'm attacking innocents, two things are true...

Either someone hacked my computer, or I deserve to get attacked. :)

If I play a bad guy, I can guarantee he'll have more important things to do than attack innocent people.

Oh great. A Boss/Mastermind encounter!

He is the Emprah!!!

Goblin Squad Member

To me playing evil is a combination of things. Your motives for your character are evil. Your character's actions are evil. No one is truly safe from you, as long as they might stand in the way of your motives or actions.

Game play is player based. Character play is game based. A briefer is someone who mixes the two. A player who uses his/her character to harm others outside of the game play "rules".

The evil crafter:

The evil crafter is motivated by greed, lust and pride. He wishes to be the best [available] crafter in his territory. He gain gain this status by training to be the best (long road) or by hindering or even killing off his competition (short cut). An evil character is more inclined to take the short cut.

On the issue of innocence. The evil character does not consider the innocence of a victim. If the victim stands in the way of the evil character reaching his objectives, innocence is no defense.. The evil character sees the innocent as an obstacle that needs to be eliminated.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

EoX Hobs wrote:
If I play a bad guy, I can guarantee he'll have more important things to do than attack innocent people.

Glad to hear it!

Scarab Sages

Bluddwolf wrote:
On the issue of innocence. The evil character does not consider the innocence of a victim. If the victim stands in the way of the evil character reaching his objectives, innocence is no defense.. The evil character sees the innocent as an obstacle that needs to be eliminated.

For some concepts, innocence are not only an obstacle and a flaw, but it's a weaken spot to be combated. When the warrior see a defense breakpoint when someone do not hold the shield properly (or wandering around j@#rking the demi-dead foe), the evil see the innocence in a flaw concept to be used for winning porpuse. This is alien for some people, because we (normally) have some moral code of conduct that make us feel the pain we cause. The evil-doer only see the benefits of it.

Goblin Squad Member

Kemedo wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
On the issue of innocence. The evil character does not consider the innocence of a victim. If the victim stands in the way of the evil character reaching his objectives, innocence is no defense.. The evil character sees the innocent as an obstacle that needs to be eliminated.
For some concepts, innocence are not only an obstacle and a flaw, but it's a weaken spot to be combated. When the warrior see a defense breakpoint when someone do not hold the shield properly (or wandering around j@#rking the demi-dead foe), the evil see the innocence in a flaw concept to be used for winning porpuse. This is alien for some people, because we (normally) have some moral code of conduct that make us feel the pain we cause. The evil-doer only see the benefits of it.

From the evil character perspective this is an accurate interpretation of innocence.

I would also add that innocence could be interpreted a lack of aggression or an unwillingness to involve oneself in an action that may benefit the greater (good) entity (company, settlement, kingdom). To a lawful evil character organization such innocence is a cancer and would be culled from the population.

There has also been bandied about the idea that innocence equals "minding my own business." The argument then goes that someone who is innocent should then be left, pretty much, alone. The flaw in this belief is in the game mechanics of the over all objective of PFO. The whole concept of settlement vs settlement competition and conflict being based on the struggle for securing access to limited resources, removes all pretenses of innocence.

If you are picking berries in the woods, someone else can not pick those same berries. You then sell those berries in the market, under cutting the price of a competitor . You sold them for a profit, taking coin from a consumer. Those berries are then purchased and crafted into a elixir, taking from another crafter the opportunity. The economic chain continues on........

At every step the denial of opportunity is felt by someone. At very step, someone is focused on self interest. This is not innocence, it is predatory.

Evil and Chaotic Neutral characters will not see innocence in any economic or combat based activity. They will see self interest, and therefore they will see it as an activity that may warrant their involvement.

That is the character's view, but the player should use game permissible means to engage in fulfilling the character's desires.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Bluddwolf

If you break everything down that far, nothing has any meaning. Every bite of food I eat is a bite that someone (more hungry) goes without...

Rather, I should say, you put too much meaning on everything. When the plants are all gone, all that air you breathed could have been here for me..

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite of Fidelis wrote:

@ Bluddwolf

If you break everything down that far, nothing has any meaning. Every bite of food I eat is a bite that someone (more hungry) goes without...

Not a bad world view, approached the right way. Be thankful for every piece of clothing, every hour of education, every bite, as someone else in more need is not receiving that one.

Anyways, as to Bludd's post: I wouldn't go so far as to use the word "predatory"; that should (in my opinion anyways) convey that the harm inflicted on the others is intentional and desired. Still, I agree with the basic premise to some extent; in an environment with limited resources, taking some for yourself is taking some away from someone else. Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind, but it shouldn't come as a surprise to any gatherers who are just "minding their own business" that others will try to hamper their gathering operations.

Goblin Squad Member

It would be refreshing if resources were very scarce and grouping to get them and move them was the absolutely only (99%) chance to bank/market them.

The term "Minding your own business" in gathering, trading, etc... is a personal judgment call. It doesn't apply in feuds, faction, war, poaching on another's land or any declared state of hostilities.

As a good guy though, you have to draw the line between predators and prospectors.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite of Fidelis wrote:

It would be refreshing if resources were very scarce and grouping to get them and move them was the absolutely only (99%) chance to bank/market them.

The term "Minding your own business" in gathering, trading, etc... is a personal judgment call. It doesn't apply in feuds, faction, war, poaching on another's land or any declared state of hostilities.

As a good guy though, you have to draw the line between predators and prospectors.

As I would expect from a good aligned character. I was of course writing from an evil or chaotic neutral character's perspective.

Goblin Squad Member

:) True that. This is all it really is for bandits and goody two shoes protectors.

Scarab Sages

Infact there are two different meanings of Innocence.

a) The lack of malicious

b) The ausense of guilty or crime acts.

While the meanings are very close they are not the same.

While in "a" the subject simply do not know the evil and even consider it in his actions decision, in "b" this is not the rule. The innocent could know what the evil-doers can do, but deliberately do nothing about or even better, passively protect himself from it. While still innocent, in the term he is not willing doing evil things, he do not allow it to influence him or his actions.

While the "a" could be prejudicial for the innocent subject, letting him expose for bad intensions (like bandits). The "b" maybe not.

The assumption, even rare, that a person by being good are not prepared for evil, lead so many villains to defeat prematurely. And this is not occuring when the good one are allowed that the evil one is there.

In the last stance, every action, good or evil, innocent or malicious, are egoistics actions. Said the philosopher.

Goblin Squad Member

Simple truth of the situation is there are many more good settlements then neutral/evil. I'm sure resources will be such that you can't fuel two settlements by 'sharing' one, which means these 'good' guys will have to decide if they are going to let their settlement go without what it needs to advance, or attack their neighbor for the resource their settlement needs to survive.

I see Good vs Good conflict as much higher potential then Good vs Evil at this point, simply due to the saturation of do-gooders. For Evil folk? Just sit back and take it all during their warring amongst themselves. Raids, SAD's, while they fight over the resources your about to take.

I look forward to OE and the mechanics of settlement warfare.

Goblin Squad Member

Aet Kard Warstein wrote:
Simple truth of the situation is there are many more good settlements then neutral/evil.

I would argue that there are many more settlements which *intend* to be good, but wet have yet to see whether intention will easily become reality.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aet Kard Warstein wrote:

Simple truth of the situation is there are many more good settlements then neutral/evil. I'm sure resources will be such that you can't fuel two settlements by 'sharing' one, which means these 'good' guys will have to decide if they are going to let their settlement go without what it needs to advance, or attack their neighbor for the resource their settlement needs to survive.

I see Good vs Good conflict as much higher potential then Good vs Evil at this point, simply due to the saturation of do-gooders. For Evil folk? Just sit back and take it all during their warring amongst themselves. Raids, SAD's, while they fight over the resources your about to take.

I look forward to OE and the mechanics of settlement warfare.

I believe that there will be an attempt for the good aligned settlements to cooperate and trade (at cost) in order to avoid conflict over resources. The majority of these groups are not PvP oriented to begin with and would be fine if they face none at the hands of each other, or others outside of good alignments.

The One notable evil settlement will not be able to provide that content for the entire server, even with the help of the One CN settlement that also wants to generate conflict based content.

My hope is that OE brings in at least one mega guild focused on PvP Zerg and conquest.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aet Kard Warstein wrote:

Simple truth of the situation is there are many more good settlements then neutral/evil. I'm sure resources will be such that you can't fuel two settlements by 'sharing' one, which means these 'good' guys will have to decide if they are going to let their settlement go without what it needs to advance, or attack their neighbor for the resource their settlement needs to survive.

I see Good vs Good conflict as much higher potential then Good vs Evil at this point, simply due to the saturation of do-gooders. For Evil folk? Just sit back and take it all during their warring amongst themselves. Raids, SAD's, while they fight over the resources your about to take.

I look forward to OE and the mechanics of settlement warfare.

Problem is, there are a lot of people in RPG think, that they are "good", because they are ignoring the manichean meaning of "good", in the context of Pathfinder or D&D.

Just wait for the beginning of the game, and you will begin to see a lot of supposedly good guys, going neutral or evil.

You shouldn't forget also that for now, most of the population of PFO comes from the tabletop population, which is used to play good oriented characters. That's not the case, for the classic MMO population.

Scarab Sages

Indeed Audoucet. This is my guess too.

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:


You shouldn't forget also that for now, most of the population of PFO comes from the tabletop population, which is used to play good oriented characters. That's not the case, for the classic MMO population.

This is true, which is why I have argued that whatever culture that is being crafted during EE will dramatically shift, or even come crashing down, when OE begins.

Unfortunately EE, with its limited game features, will create an artificial climate that will not be sustained post OE. Those players not prepare for that will be taken off guard. How they respond will be varied.

Goblin Squad Member

With nearly 2 years of playing the EE culture, even if folks can't handle OE they can be satisfied they got their monies worth at least. Many games can't hold people's interest that long.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

With the slow level progression and ability to keep my knowledge of abilities regardless of death, this game will probably be added to my shortlist of 4+ years played.

301 to 331 of 331 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Lack of evil All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online