I have been noticing a recent trend for evil characters who seem sociopathic and/or plain stupid in their devotion to being bad. Luckily, they tend to be short lived, or learn to mask their evil natures well enough to blend in.

Lately, it seems (from a bystanders perspective) being evil is used as an excuse to be an ass, and little more. I am eager to hear thoughts on the subject.

Rude is rude, ass is ass. You can be an ass even if you are good. It's about the person.

This is my first time playing evil, and it is tough to do right. But some evil are just plain jerks. Take it with a grain of salt, these are likely IC actions.

My curiosity is as a result of observing people interacting with each other in what seems to be conflict with very little RP to back it up... I know I am not privy to everything that goes on between those characters, but it has that appearance on the surface.

Like I said, I am eager to hear other people's perspectives.

I think that being evil embodies several more subtle aspects that people who are trying to play the evil role sometimes miss.

When we role play, we are essentially acting, like any professional actor would. The difference is many of us are not good actors, and thats not to say that we suck as players but its just not our calling per se to have the talent to emulate another personality other than our own.

I think most times, people will take a section of their own personality and just amplify it for the sake of the character.

And while being good or evil may seem easy to some, perhaps others just have a more difficult time embracing that aspect of their personality.

Being evil is just like being good, same intricacies and personal drive, but with an opposing twist.

For example, if a good character teams with a neutral one and the neutral one does something rash, the good character will simply take it in stride or politely ask them to not do that in the future.

If an evil character were in place of the good one, the evil one would probably react with disdain and mailce, scolding the person in more blunt way (maybe not being rude, just way more direct). Or alternatively the evil person might decide to abandon the neutral one for the saftey of himself (after all evil is steotypically selfish and good is typically self-less)

You don't have to swear at the person or insult them but for some players that is the only aspect they can grasp of being evil. And while we may find it offensive both IC and OOC, we have to keep in mind that the other player just might not be as good at 'acting' as others in the game are and learn to accept that fact.

What annoys me sometimes is that the ramifications of being evil often ARENT acted on both by d.m's and players. Maybe it IS a hard callous world under the surface that people will ignore somebody getting eviscerated next to them. But d.m's cant be everywhere to possess the nearest guard and do something about it.

I did hear about a player that was attacked in a party by an evil character while some paladins did NOTHING to help, they managed to justify their way out of it somehow. (story could have changed in the telling)

I'd agree that some people just play evil to "vent" or "persecute" other players rather than to enliven the atmosphere between characters and the world, but I dont consider that the majority on here. There are some good players that KNOW how to play an evil character well, and I applaud those. It also takes a good amount of guts to put work into the background of a character knowing they're likely going to die on the end of a guards blade, or spellguards missile swarm. Only to have to go through it all again.

As long as the PLAYER (whatever alignment they're playing) respects the other players it works, and thats also one of the good reasons why PvP SHOULD always have a d.m present.

I personally look at evil as a responsibility. People perma-die a lot as a result of PvP, if that is to be the case, and I am to be the cause, I feel a responsibility to have that end be the result of some great RPed conflict.

Last week I was part of a battle in the sewers. The matter that touched off the conflict was RP. The character whom we had interacted with got a few friends and came looking for us, and eventually they did. So what ought to have been a bit of RP, fostered some PvP in the end. The characters who came looking for us were outmatched, yet pressed the matter. They were given the chance to leave, yet stayed. Three of their five died in that tunnel as the result of one of our guys playing his character the way he is: Very confrontational. These are the deaths I don't like a lot...the ones that could have been avoided at many turns of the story. It was very IC for what happened to happen the way it did, but still I feel a bit bad there. They could have lived just as easily, yet they chose to press the matter.

So, again we see that the RP of ones character is often the driving factor behind their actions IG. It's not the random I'm evil because I can types that go far. It's the I'm evil for a reason, and I have a plan to accomplish it ones that survive and grow to villains we can all love, hate or admire OOC for bringing something unique here for everyone.

IF any of you are confussed on how to be evil. Just read some of the fantasy books I have read! I would recomend Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn by Tad Williams. Inelukkie and King Elies are just plain feakishly run for you lives evil! Escepcially Inelukkie!!!! *shudders*

They are good examples how some who whats to be CE should act. But be warned if I find anyone RPing like them, I most likely will be you enemy really fast and may end up killing you since I always play good, :D

What annoys me sometimes is that the ramifications of being evil often ARENT acted on both by d.m's and players. Maybe it IS a hard callous world under the surface that people will ignore somebody getting eviscerated next to them. But d.m's cant be everywhere to possess the nearest guard and do something about it.

If someone is killed in front of NPCs with no DMs present, please screenshot and report it in an email.

Evil -can- be an easy excuse, but generally in my experience as a DM on EfU has not been. If there are specific incidents of players behaving in an inappropriate manner, screenshots/e-mails are thoroughly encouraged.

either good or evil can be an excuse to distance yourself from different types of characters, or to be an 'ass' to them. For instance the way an evil character would act towards a paladin, is very often the same way a paladin would act towards them.

anyway, i'm not here to ramble, but to shine some light on a past experience of mine.

While alot of evil characters come off as being jerks, and alot of the time it seems that they may not have rp justified actions, i think this is often not the case. I have had characters murdered before and the likes, and in each case (though at the time i was pissed and acted like a douche) they had thoroughly roleplayed leading up to my demise, as far as plotting, and planning my death would go. I think evil folks tend to do stuff in more secretive ways, and for good reason, this could be part of the reason why they come off as seeming jerk-like. Not eveyone can explain their rp reasons for acting the way they act, to everyone..and so yeah.

I hope that made some sense.

Sedarine I personally look at evil as a responsibility. People perma-die a lot as a result of PvP, if that is to be the case, and I am to be the cause, I feel a responsibility to have that end be the result of some great RPed conflict.

I was in a party that had one of our party members hacked down by another. The tension between the two was obvious and well RPed. The party I believe was mostly filled with evil characters and they kept claiming he was a Paladin, even though he denied it. The tension was well established and it was just plain unnessessary for the evil player to even consider hacking down the other, in any situation and especially while on a quest together and while fighting NPCs. Fortunately he was punished later.

Bindragon This does not mean they need to kill others, because just the threat of danger is many times sufficient. That said, the killing of another should always be well RPed, because the unfounded grief is otherwise not worth it.

I'm not quite sure I understood you here, but I am of the opinion that IC considerations are priority to everything else. If another character's sheer existence poses so much of a threat to your own character's, IC steps should be taken to shorten their existence. It's the way things are, especially in a setting like FR. This do-or-die kind of situation is one of the greatest firestarters of PC-PC conflict and should never be overlooked.

That said, I have something I wish to offer the community. A suggestion, if you will.

Many times, I have been confronted with the choice of killing, or not, a character. The times in which I chose to kill them were all because of one simple IC factor: If I let them live, I wasn't sure I could properly mount defenses to deal with their revenge.

It's the truth. Letting people live in PvP encounters that are the result of polar opposition between characters CAN result in death for the 'merciful' party. Therefore, my suggestion is that people accept that, if they're allowed to leave, perhaps they should step back from the 'win' mentality a bit, and let the story roll some more. "They won round one, and they beat me to a pulp. I'm not about to go gunning for them. I'm scared and happy to be alive" is not a reaction you get often from PvP encounters. Note, please, that I do not mean encounters from which the losing side leaves battered and bruised, but flees using its own wits/resources. What I mean here, is that type of encounter where one of the characters is stripped down to no inventory, at near death and blacked out in front of somebody else.

If an agreement can be reached between the two parties, to let both characters walk off alive, but with their conflict solved (meaning someone gets what they want, at least temporarily) then it tends to open up the story for lots more meandering, since two characters make for more conflict than a single one. I know I've had people tell me that their characters' greatest drive was their enmity towards one of my own. It only goes to show how this kind of agreement can be helpful in an OOC way. With some twisting and creativity, it could also be made into something that made a lot of IC sense, as well. I know I'll be taking this route a lot from now on, and I hope more people give it a though before FD'ing someone else's character.

In the fashion of DM announcement posts, I'll just sign off saying that no particular incident motivated this suggestion.

- Kiaring

I have an evil character who is an asshole. Not because he's evil but because he's got as much charisma as a shit covered plank of rotten wood with a rusty nail in it. IF I did have charisma he'd probably have alot more loot/qeusting buddies. But thats another story.

What bugs me are ridiculous comic book evil characters.

People who just go out of their way to see 'evil' or 'macabre' but stike me mostly as just juvenile with no real understanding of what those words actually mean.

Evil put forward without real thought about why the character is evil even, but just as an attention grabbing 'shock' value. I only see this occasionally, but every time it crops up its just so sad to watch. My evil characters usually end up mocking these 'wannabe' folks if not killing them outright because they seem so mentally unstable rather than evil.

There was a lot of good comments made here about responsibly RPing evil, and a few about the IC justifications of the evil character in terms of their actions.

I like the idea of responsibility, and giving others significant RP opportunities to experience one's evilness, but also avoid terminal consequences... Being evil does not require one to have no scruppled regarding killing.

In the case of people using their IC secretiveness and self-preservation instincts to justify acts... IC, a person could decide to wait in the abandoned mines and ambush, murder, and rob people toting trade goods. A former highwayman and murderer who has found their way to the underdark would not baulk at such behavior. IC, they could even have a grudge with a person, and find a similar ambush opportunity to exact their cruel and terminal desires.

I have not observed such activity on EfU, but I am pointing out how IC justification alone lends itself to very grey, if not black, areas.

I think that if one is to play evil, it should be with scrupples... even if that forces a bit of OOC respect for others that an evil person may not otherwise feel.

I appreciate all the great feedback, and am interested in hearing more.

Therefore, my suggestion is that people accept that, if they're allowed to leave, perhaps they should step back from the 'win' mentality a bit, and let the story roll some more. "They won round one, and they beat me to a pulp. I'm not about to go gunning for them. I'm scared and happy to be alive" is not a reaction you get often from PvP encounters.

Agreed, Kiaring.

It really strikes me as an OOCly thing to go hunting whoever just beat the shit out of you (and could have killed you if they wanted to). Unless your character is either unafraid of death or just plain stupid, he/she is gonna be shit scared of whoever beat them up, considering they know they could be dead now if the opponent wished it.

I see it all the time. Char A and B have some PvP, in which B gets easily beaten down. A decides to let him live. B then goes on a levelling spree and comes back after checking the player list and seeing that he is now 2 levels higher. They fight again, and A dies. An OOC issue.

Howvever, thankfully its not always so OOC. A situation in which going straight back after the guy who just smashed you to a pulp would be something like this:

A and B fight, after having some IC disputes. A downs B, but decides to let him live, as a warning. While B is knocked out, A takes his most sentimental object, so that B would be in his power B revives, remembers what happened, sees his most sentimental piece of equipment lost. He then approaches A and offers his apologies, tryign as best he can to even become friends with him. Really though, B is driven this entire time out of pure hatred for A, but eventually becomes close enough that, sometime in the future, they are alone and out of the city. B then informs A of his treachery and his intent, and they fight. One dies, but after all that, it was worth it.

My character go the shit beaten out of him just yestersday, by a group he was travelling with. After salvaging all their stuff after they died, then raising them, they beat him up over a few scrolls and rings which he still hadnt remebered to give back, as he had alot of stuff from the 3 that died. They easily overwhelemed him, knocked him out, and took it. The IC reasons were there. They didnt kill me, nor did they steal any of my very valuable equipment (which they could have), but they did frighten him a little. My character is no mighty heroe. He is a self-driven, most cowardly middle aged man. Powerful, yes, but he knows he cant stand against a whole group. So he considered it, then let it drop. I'm not saying the above scenarios are the only way to go about it, or that PvP in which someone dies should be so drawn out. Just make sure the IC reasons and the RP are present.

I've tried to put some thought into playing my evil character (my first admittedly). She's not stupid evil by any means, adn I hope most players would not even realise she's evil, as she doesn't go around roasting babies or proclaimied "I'm EVUL!" to the heavens. She doesn't even see herself as evil.

The character (Kata) is hard, greedy and ruthless when required, but only when required. She loves, has friends and would die to save them, even though she is "evil". She will also stamp on things that get in her way without a second thought.

Cartoon character evil is rather predictable and boring. The best evil people are the ones you never suspected.

I have more trouble with Evil-Lite, or those that Should be Neutral with annoying attitudes, and Convenient Nasty, Or those that do things like torture you, kill you, raise you and repeat while gloating the whole time.

Still. There ARE people that are Just Jerks. There are a Few that are a "good" evil. But basically. This is Evil.

Evil

adj 1: morally bad or wrong; "evil purposes"; "an evil influence"; "evil deeds" [syn: wicked] [ant: good] 2: having the nature of vice [syn: depraved, vicious] 3: tending to cause great harm [syn: harmful, injurious] 4: having or exerting a malignant influence; "malevolent stars"; "a malefic force" [syn: malefic, malevolent, malign] n 1: morally objectionable behavior [syn: immorality, wickedness, iniquity] 2: that which causes harm or destruction or misfortune; "the evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones"- Shakespeare 3: the quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice; "attempts to explain the origin of evil in the world" [syn: evilness] [ant: good]

Not a lot of, "I'm Misunderstood, I'm a nessesary force in the universe and I should be liked, I'm just power hungry, you don't know me don't judge me Damn why can't I walk past this Protection from Evil Barrier!"

One of the main reasons folks avoid GOOD alignments is becuase they feel there is no freedom in it. The "How Dare you Tell me How to Run My Character Syndrome". Because Playing Good does not "pay off". Because Evil (though as it is plainly written, A LG Paladin, will fight Evil Tirelessly, and Without Mercy against such) will not be bitch slapped to good for doing good deeds, but the good guy gets slapped across the face for doing something GOOD, though against a tyrannical Law enforced by an Evil Person.

Another of the things that allways brings up the whole thing, is the DnD crowd vs the Computer Game Crowd. In DnD Good and Evil are NOT Philosophical Concepts. They are the Forces that Define The Cosmos. As pointed out also, Anyone even remotely Indecisive, is Neutral. Alignment is though ment to be a guideline is also ment to be the defining compass of the character. Wishy Washy morals equal Neutral, as shown in the literature.

For those that have never seen the alignment descriptions:

Lawful Good, "Crusader": A Lawful Good character, acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A Lawful Good Character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is Lawful Good. Lawful Good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

Neutral Good, "Benefactor" : A Neutral Good character does the best a good person can do. he is devoted to helping others. He works with Kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. Jozan, a cleric who helps others according to their needs, is Neutral Good. Neutral Good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order.

Chaotic Good, "Rebel" : A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard to what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolant. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which allthough good, may not agree with Society. Soveliss, a ranger who waylays the evil baron's tax collectors, is chaotic good. Chaotic Good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit.

Lawful Neutral, "Judge" : A lawful Neutral person acts as law,tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may belive in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government. Ember, a monk that follows her discipline without being swayed either by the demands of those in need or by the temptations of evil, is Lawful neutral. Lawful Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.

Neutral, "Undecided": A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather then a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better--after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers then evil ones. Still, she is personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. Mialee, a wizard who devotes herself to her art and is bored by the semantics of moral debate, is neutral. Some Neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophiclly to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos, as predjuidices and dangerous extreams. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run. Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without predjudice or compulsion.

Chaotic Neutral, "Free Spirit": A Chaotic Neutral character follows his whims. he is an individualist first and last. he values his own liberty but doesn't stive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A Chaotic Neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make others different from himself suffer). A Chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as he is to cross it. Gimble, a bard that makes his living by his wits, is chaotic neutral. Chaotic Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents freedom from both society's restrictions, and a do-gooder's zeal.

Lawful Evil, "Dominator": A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his own code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and Order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. he is comfortable in a heirarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to their race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. This comes partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on some moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains. The scheming baron who expands his power and exploits his people is Lawful Evil. Some lawful evil people commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil diety or master. Lawful evil is sometimes called "diabolical" because devils are the epitome of lawful evil. Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.

Neutral Evil, "Malefactor": A neutral Evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself pure and simple. she sheds no tears for those she kills, wether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusions that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn't have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has. The criminal who robs and murders to get what she wants is neutral evil. Some neutral Evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for it's own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil dieties or secret societies. Neutral evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents pure wvil without honor and without variation.

Chaotic Evil. "Destroyer": A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot tempered, vicious, arbitrrarily violent and unpredictable. If he is simply out for what he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thawrt attempts to topple or assassinate him. The demented sorcerer pursuing mad schemes of vengeance and havoc is chaotic evil. Chaotic Evil is sometimes called "Demonic" because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil. Chaotic Evil is the most dangerous alignment, because it represents the destruction, of not only beauty and life but also the order that beauty and life depend.

Another Definition:

villain

n 1: a wicked or evil person; someone who does evil deliberately [syn: scoundrel] 2: the principle bad character in a film or work of fiction [syn: baddie]

For those that are in that mass of "I did bad things in the past, I was forced, I was this I was that I was corrupted" and "don't judge cause now I do only good things to redeem my wicked past, sound like your balancing the scales aka Neutral. Neutral people flip flop. Neutral gives you a HUGE range of actions to let the DM's dictate where your alignment ends up based on your actions. Neutral gives you the greatest range of flexability to choose what you want to do. If your one of the folks LYING about all that, then more power to you for every person that goes along. LYING is what evil people do. Every Great Villain needs to be able to Lie, or at least, get his underlings to do it for him.

I miss the Old Giants in the Earth Articles in Dragon Magazine. Greatest Stuff ever for giving people examples of Good and Evils as it relates to DnD.

BTW, for Paladin Fans : Holger Carlson from Poul Andersons Book, Three Hearts and Three Lions. The basis for the Paladin Class.

Great example in Literature from LG to LE : Tarl Cabot from John Normans Gor novels. You can follow the moral shift from book to book with ease.

Clear definitions of Good and Evil and how they relate, Anything by Tanith Lee.

Might have to start a Read this Book thread.

~Rex

Many clappings. Though, I must say that lying can be done by any alignment - and chaotic folks can lie without being considered evil (i.e. white lies are pretty chaotic or lies that don't exactly harm the person but don't benefit him neither).

Other than that, it's pretty perfect. :)

Snowy Many clappings. Though, I must say that lying can be done by any alignment - and chaotic folks can lie without being considered evil (i.e. white lies are pretty chaotic or lies that don't exactly harm the person but don't benefit him neither).

Other than that, it's pretty perfect. :)

I think the BoVD considers lying evil *shrugs offhandedly*

Sometimes a lie can be good, when you want to prevent hurting feelings. But me mostly, I'm a guy who lives by the Sourcebook. Can you give me a page on that, Tristan, so I can verify it?

Coldburn is a sourcebook guy, even if the game isnt quite :)

Anyway to me I dont consider lying to be "evil", it depends totally on what's intended.

1) you could lie and save somebodies life.

2) You could lie and cause somebody to die.

And in both of those cases you may have intended that income or not. It's the intention as always, the attitude and what people do afterwards.

You could have made a mistake and caused somebody to die, but if it wasnt your intention it's not evil.

Lying is not inherently evil on EFU, for whatever that's worth. The reasons/results of the dishonesty decides the nature of it.

IMHO: what is evil or good is less decided by what has been done. It's more why and how that has been done. I can kill, lie, cheat and do almost anything -and it can be considered good or evil as well, depending in the background. Intentions and circumstances are the important factor to decide this. A good man can cause pain, and an evil one can heal. But why are they doing this? Not the act decides.

An other tought: everybody has loved ones, and hated ones, without exception. You love your loved ones, you hate your hated ones, that's natural. The big factor: how do you relate with the neutral ones? Respect them, abuse them? That's the big decision line between good and evil. And then you can round it up to the non-neutral groups. A good and an evil person treats his loved ones differently, not to mention hated ones. I know it is a bit simplified process, but it helped me (and lot other RPer whom I taught about RPing) to flesh out the characters.

Just a few thoughts on the matter.

Im not sure if anyone else feels this way but I think if someone is going to do special evil action rp with you (violence, theivery, etc) it might be best for you and that perosn to talk about it icly before they just run off and do their thing then disappear to the great beyond. That sort of situation creates no rp, a feeling of disappointment, anger resentment and stuff in the player it was done to, and likely joy and satisfaction from the evil char who just gained from doing something mean. This is a game people, and its meant to be fun. That doesnt mean everyone has to be nice to eachother but it would be great if people could at least be understanding of what others are trying to do. maybe my plea is futile I dont know but I really wish violence and theivery should be discussed somewhat in tells if we all plan on being fair and good rpers. I have no problem rping a situation thats risky to me if it will turn out to be GOOD genuine rp with some story behind it. That doesnt mean the evil people have to just give away their plans but make sure you arent hurting anyones feelings or ruining their day by what youre about to do. Its stupid and actually quite selfish to hide behind rp as a reason for you to do well and profit at others expense. Good chars need to learn to play along with the plots and schemes of evil ones and evil with good because oocly I hope none of us are immature enough to not be able to have a simple conversation and remember-people play to have fun! and that includes everyone

Sorry I was a bit slow responding to this post, I only just noticed it.

Personally I disagree with some of what has been said so far reagarding evil and PvP. I’m all for PvP, and I’m all for full looting and killing players, but I think it can be boring if its just a fight. I was interested to hear Seladrines perspective on this fight:

Last week I was part of a battle in the sewers. The matter that touched off the conflict was RP. The character whom we had interacted with got a few friends and came looking for us, and eventually they did. So what ought to have been a bit of RP, fostered some PvP in the end. The characters who came looking for us were outmatched, yet pressed the matter. They were given the chance to leave, yet stayed. Three of their five died in that tunnel as the result of one of our guys playing his character the way he is: Very confrontational. These are the deaths I don't like a lot...the ones that could have been avoided at many turns of the story. It was very IC for what happened to happen the way it did, but still I feel a bit bad there. They could have lived just as easily, yet they chose to press the matter.

My character died in this fight. I was quite surprised (not that he died, he was the king gimp) but that I was killed rather than beaten down. I was surprised there was even a fight. Since it was mostly just a point of honour that was being quibbled over, I had expected both parties to walk away with a new enemy to start work on. This, for me, is where PvP is fun. Its fun when you have an enemy and can start to make there life difficult. Ideally it ends with the death of one party, but there isn’t a rush. This game thrives on PvP encounters, and every time a player is killed at the first argument, some RP PvP opportunities are lost. This ties in with what Kiaring wrote:

Many times, I have been confronted with the choice of killing, or not, a character. The times in which I chose to kill them were all because of one simple IC factor: If I let them live, I wasn't sure I could properly mount defenses to deal with their revenge.

She goes on to talk about beaten down victims “forgetting” or being cowed into not reacting. This is fine if its IC, but personally when I beat someone up rather than kill them, I –want- them to come gunning for me. What I don’t want is to be blindsided FD & FLed the first time I walk somewhere dark. I want them to spread lies about me, to turn my friends against me, poison my drink, trick me into slandering my god and put a unicorns head in my bed…. then… and only then, I am up for one player dying in a bit of PvP. The fight above was just… dull. Yes its probably as IC for ruthless little Frudoc to have cut their throats as it was for them to kill him, but I was on subdue, and I didn’t even consider killing anyone. It just wasn’t going to be fun enough for the parties involved. Its fine to RP characters, but when it comes to ruthless murder, I tend to fudge a little to make stuff more challenging for me, and more intersting for everyone.

Related to this, but still slightly OT, I can't see any problem with subduing in all PvPs. Once you've beaten someone down to the ground, you've got your opportunity to gloat over them a bit, and they can have a final last word before you give them the coup de gras.

I see this as so much more satisfying for all partied involved than simply killing somone quickly and leaving a corpse.

I play the very confrontational character Seldarine mentioned before. At the risk of letting the proverbial cat out of the bag (most of this is "duh" information), I will reveal that I am a Drow, I am CE, and I have absolutely no regard for the lives of any of the people living in Sanctuary who arent also darkskinned and elven, and little regard as well for those who are. Ask dholt and sedarine how Zau treats them.

Having said that, I feel the need to elabourate on some of the details of the specific events in question:

With regards to the fight in the sewers. One of the people involved in that fight had already been given a beating and left to live once already at that point (Mayna). Another had avoided a near death situation narrowly in the recent past as well (Frudoc). If a life has already been spared once, and that person has come back gunning for you, are you gonna spare it again? Probably not.

Two people got away from that debacle, and Zau is completely of the mind that if they leave him alone, he'll leave them alone. He kills for money, and in self defence. He's no sociopath, but at the same time, he's not prone to making the same mistake twice with someone.

On the same note, Arto got beaten up by Zau, and the next day they were questing together. Arto gets it. Sometimes its better to settle a matter once, and leave it settled.

Ask anyone who talks to me OOCly about killing players, and they'll tell you. Whenever I am asked to kill someone, one of the first things I OOCly say to the person I'm talking with is "I need to think about it, I walk a fine line between awesome and griefy, and I dont want to swing towards the griefy side, even a little". Basically I need to determine if its IC for Zau to do it, given his "code".

I've turned down hits on numerous characters thus far because it just wasnt justified to me, OOCly and ICly, to kill them.

It's really a two way street. If you get away, or are left alive once, you should really try to avoid gunning for them a second time. If you do, please dont whine if you die. You made your bed, you get to lie in it.

On the topic of subualing in fights. Sorry, in practice, it just dosnt work. You beat someone down to winded, or unconscious, and as soon as they are able, they are standing up and quaffing healing potions, or just plain out running. It'd be a hell of a lot easier to make a death enjoyable for someone if those people would give you some time to type out your long, villianous soliloquay, but more often than not, what comes out if more like:

"Finally (insert hero name here), your time has come. You've no idea how long I've imagined this moment, to have you completely at my mer ...... (hero gets up, quaffs a speed potion, and runs like hell) .... h..HEY! Get back here! (hero runs straight to the nearest guard, leaving the villian to flee to his secret lair as the watch is roused and searching the streets for him)."

One of the few times I've disagreed with something you've said Scrappa.

I want them to spread lies about me, to turn my friends against me, poison my drink, trick me into slandering my god and put a unicorns head in my bed…. then… and only then, I am up for one player dying in a bit of PvP.

Scrappa, that essentially relies on the character in question. If you piss off a 10 INT, 10 WIS half-orc barbarian (or another equally as blunt type of PC) enough so that they want to kill you, then they are gonna try and kill you. Bluntly.

They aren't going to spread any lies or rumours about you or trick you into slandering your god. They are gonna get their greataxe and pummel the shit out of you first chance they can get. Its the IC thing for them to do.

Having said that, I admit that elaborate plots engineered by enemy PCs are so much more fun, but it really shouldn't be the prerequisite for PvP.

"I need to think about it, I walk a fine line between awesome and griefy."

Its true, he says that line!

Mad cads your example is flawed in that the average person has 10 int 10 wis. Maybe with 10 int 8 wis they would do something as blunt asthat. 10 Wis characters will plan ahead they just are'nt expert planners as some oter characters might be.

The ability score reference was merely an example. Really, whether or not a character will go to great lengths to engineer intricate plans that will lead to an enemies' demise, or whether they simply kill them on the spot next convenient chance, depends on the character's personality, motives and mood, and absolutely nothing else.

Personality should tie in with ablity scores to mad cads :)

Of course 8)

Ommadawn She doesn't even see herself as evil.

Cartoon character evil is rather predictable and boring. The best evil people are the ones you never suspected.

This is how I view things, I'm playing my first evil character but she doesn't consider herself either. Think of the people who blow up abortion clincs..most of us would consider themselves evil but they do not.