Every now and then, I have ideas that I feel I ought to share. I will endeavour to put them here. Don't consider this a DM telling you what to do. This is Crosswind, who has been wrong at least once, just rambling.
The majority of the popular persistent worlds out there have a lawful bent. Perhaps it's similar to real life...perhaps it helps deal with grief players...perhaps it reigns in people who would imbalance the module. For whatever reason, it's a truth - servers tend towards lawful and good.
When Howland sat down and came up with this concept, he intentionally made it a less lawful setting. A less good setting. The setting itself is neither chaotic, nor evil, but there are authorities at all corners of the alignment chart. This was a great idea, because it enables the players themselves to determine the "alignment" of the server at any given time. Seeing as the DMs here seem to be very big on players affecting the server, this set the standard.
What makes me curious, and makes me ramble, is wondering how players will react to this newfound lack of direction. The server isn't Lawful Good, and the result is that it will be much easier to play characters that aren't those alignments than it would be on a LG-aligned server. Do we then see a glut of people playing evil, flooding what evil factions we have, with plenty left over to be free-lance necromancers, murderers, etcetera? Perhaps. Tough to tell until the server goes up.
I think one thing that may be overlooked is that, more than killing the potential to be evil, a Lawful Good setting kills the potential to be truly good. Sure. You can be Good, but so are all the high level NPC paladins, the guards, the council, etcetera. How do you measure up to them? And, more importantly, the setting itself attracts so many good PCs that it can be difficult to find proper enemies or differentiate yourself from the crowd.
The best thing, I think, about a server that is not of a particular alignment, is that it makes playing a Good aligned player interesting. This is, after all, the underdark. The setting in DND seemed to be created with the "THE UNDERDARK HAS ELVES. BUT EVIL. AND DWARVES. BUT EVIL. AND GNOMES. BUT EV - ...what's that, Gary? Gnomes can't be evil, 'cause you love them? Fine, fine. AND GNOMES. BUT NEUTRAL". Everything is flip-flopped. In a Good world, it's the evil players who are the originators of conflict, the good players the ones who are reactive. In an Evil world, the good players would be the originators of conflict. In a true neutral world? Well. Everybody can create conflict, and no alignment is limited to a particular role.
Neat, huh?
End of Ramblings.
-Cross