EFUPW Forums

Well. I don't want to get off on a rant here, but I want to talk about some things. Particularly the Alignment range of things.

The main thing I want to bring up, after my short time as a Paladin, is "GOOD" Does mean Tolerant, but not Blissfully Ignorant.

I hate to sound like i'm beating a dead horse, or I don't know what, But After having played a Prominent Criminal, and now a Paladin, I can tell you one thing.

Evil Thrives because you let it. Playing a Criminal was fun, don't get me wrong, but Necromancers, Demons, Goblins, Monsters, Slavers...

Why do good guys take it?

I'm not trying to insinuate that I'm better than anyone, and I really kinda feel bad about doing this since I've only been playing a good guy for like...I don't know, 20 hours. But why is it that people feel that Good Guys can't kick ass? That you have to have a gank-squad to bring down a villain or criminal? That you have to tolerate evil, until they blatantly do something evil, Before you shake the pot? Its possible that this is moreso an angry post at my self, because I jumped the gun in the evil fighting thing with my Paladin, but I honestly am confused, having seen this new side of the server.

Worrying about "What the Guards will do" is something that came up in talking with folks before posting this, but wouldn't a true Good guy find ways around that?

Find ways to fight crime and evil, beyond the guards?

I don't know if its the duality of the server, or how people like to RP, but from going evil to good, I can almost honestly see now how it is I managed to do what I did with an evil PC. Again, I don't want to sound like an asshole to people currently playing good guys, but why do things happen the way they are?

Why is evil flourishing on this server, even though there are good guys able to put up a fight?

Anyone, and I mean anyone, can come up with evil plots and plans. The last two months on the server I met alot of different people, with alot of different aspirations and plans to be evil.  People do it all the time. Why is it that the goodly folk don't?

I'll let you in on a secret. Evil. Loves. Goodguys. To. Take. The. Lead.

Nothing helps us plot evil plots, like finding out good guys are trying to muck up our plans. It makes us feel special, and powerful, and awesome.

I guess it all boils down to one question.

Why is it that Good PC's are Reactive in most cases rather than proactive?

Good is that special feeling you get when you hold hands with your favourite gal!

I beleive the reason Team Good (using the common term here), but I think they feel reactive because it probably feels, well, wrong to open it up.

That has always been the weakness of Team Good, we always REacted, and often not fast enough. As a experianced Team Good player, I know.

I will draw your attention to the Early Montezzi faction, had Team Good rallied earlier with all their number and bull rushed Montezzi, we would of most likely won and Montezzi never would of became that strong. BUT, because we weren't proactive and only reacted (excluding the Mithrilsoul Assault, though that's arguable reactive too), we lost and Montezzi won and held on for a long time.

It's all in the sterotype I beleive, one I intend to shoot with a Issac's Greater Missile Storm or two and then a few PhKs and Fingers of Death, maybe throw a Wail of the Banshee in too

This is why I enjoy playing neutral aligned characters, I can side with either side that will benefit me the most, in some cases, it's team good, in others, mostly, it's evil.

I find it easier to be evil than good, you have more options open to you, and seemingly can achieve more than you would otherwise normally could with good.

If we had an vile corrupt government to bring down, yes, good would be proactive, HINT AT OLD PORT. in stirring up rebellion.

Good is reactionary because we let it happen, we WANT a story, we want a defeat or a victory in where the evil guys are the Antagonists.

Just me, imo.

I don't believe in the "Team Good, Team Evil" Hokum.

Good guys fight good guys just as much as Evil fights Evil.

My question was just more focused on why good people allow bad shit to happen, even though Good in DnD Inherently means "Heroic", etc.

I find this interesting as well, though I almost take it for granted a bit by now.  I think it has to do with a number of factors.  Outside of DM factions, who mostly push what would probably be considered either CE or LE actions, most major plot changing movements on this server are pioneered by a small number of PC's, generally over and over.  RWG, you are probably one of them.  Why this is?  we can leave that for another thread but most of the folks that push this stuff play evil characters and therefore it is easier to push an evil agenda.

Most players don't stir stuff up, that's just the way it is.

This might change with a group that is starting soon, hopefully, but for the most part, people either don't know how to play bad ass good folks, or don't have the energy to go against the grain.  (In my case, I think in the past it has been both)

Glad your playing a Paladin, I have no doubt he'll be interesting as hell, er, heaven...

For RwGs information, there were a few Good plots to bring down specific evil guys, but they fell due to chars being killed or vanishing, and in one case due to either blatant metagaming or a really bad time for half of a certain faction to log in.

Most of the obvious good guys have been Lawful good and have died in duels, whereas I tend to play CG/NG characters that strike when they have the advantage, or work to supply and aim convenient paladins.

I did have a plan to make a "good but ruthless" CG faction specialising in assassinations, slander, and general bastardry on deserving causes, but it got sidelined due to stuff on another char picking up.

The other problem is that the DM factions right now range from LN to NE effectively, and with the loss of the First bolt, there's less of an inclination to push for power on a Good PC through that way.

For really being "proactive" against evil (in the way that I think you mean) there's a certain ruthlessness that's required, which may not suit either the IC or OOC temperament of characters and players.

Which is certainly fine.

A good aligned character is probably not going to be attacking and declaring duels to the death at every turn. Nor would they even really remain "good" if they did.

With this particular question, to be honest I don't think generalities are very useful, and would rather propose that the individual motivation of each character/player would need to be examined in turn.

Good is obeying all the rules.

Yeah. At the time I was kinda fuming, so I'll apologize for any harsh generalities.

Having played good for the first time on EFUA, I was just baffled to see the other side of the server, in that new shiny "Good guy light", only to find that many, many things were "Tolerated" by PCs. Things that back on EFU would have caused a great deal of trouble.

Playing a Criminal I came into contact a lot with it, Living in a hovel of goblins and such, but never thought that things went the exact same way how they did for the rest of the server (Good and Neutral fellows), as they went for me. Something I really didn't put well into words.

As to your comment Germain, Paladin died. I hope to continue working on the Goodly side of the server, and delve a bit deeper into things, though, so I look forward to seeing some more of these shady-but-goodly plots in action. It will be neat to flex my heroic and RP muscles, as I've spent a very long time focusing on the Evil and Crime of EFU for literally most of its entirety.

Anywho, Again, Sorry for coming off kinda jackassy. I had no intent of belittling anyones plots or anything, but it just wasn't what I expected and that threw me for one hell of a loop.

Good and Neutral are hard. Often, very hard. I've never really played a very successful neutral or good player.

To be quite honest, the players I enjoy playing with the most play evil characters. Most veterans tend to play evil characters, and play them better.

Example? Let's use Krunto. His paladin did some pretty neat things for New Dunwarren, Goodly PCs were in their prime and he certainly helped make it that way. Motivated towards a very unclear idea, empowering New Dunwarren, and one very clear but reactive idea, end Montezzi rule. But it all fell to pieces very quickly and nothing major really came of the "empower ND" theme. Successful? I think so. But not for very long.

Look at Krunto's Stygian... wow. Very involving, very intense, clearly motivated. He made the Stygians FEARED because HE was feared. He involved other players in his quest for power, glory, wealth, etc. and was an extremely successful character.

The difference between these characters? Why was one more successful? Clearly, it was the characters' ability to involve others. What it boils down to is that evil deeds typically require significantly less DM attention and needs more PC attention. Even when a good or neutral-aligned character has big, awesome ideas and goals, rarely are they able to muster the support for them because the execution of those goals are often very vague.

Example? I cannot help but recall Lucius Westmore... he tried to do exactly what Montezzi did (control Lower), but in the name of fighting evil. After weeks of trying to get people together and even having the pledged support of a small group of NPCs from wcsherry... there simply wasn't enough support from the PCs to make the story happen. There are, of course, many, many different reasons why Montezzi's takeover was more successful and ultimately impactful than Westmore's attempts, but I think it's a fine example of how things typically turn out for good and neutral characters on EfU. It's just a social thing... the way our community functions. Could it or should it change? I'd love to see it, but I wouldn't bet on it.

And anyways, we all love EfU because of its darkness! It's a scary place! So keep that in mind.

imo

I think you need to define good, and as Howland said, that will change from character to character. It is really a perspective.  We're the Knights Templar good? Depends on who you ask. How about our own Order? Same answer. And so it goes. I think at heart, most of us are good people in real life, so it is more fun to be able to be evil with no rl consequences.  Also, it is almost impossible to not be reactionary based good aligned player. As soon as your proactive, you start crossing lines that seperate good from evil quite quickly. Again, see Howlands post.  I am sure it can be done, I remember a certain Paladin, that helped end goblin town in EFU.  I am sure he was LG, but the goblins thought him an evil, genocidal killer  *shrugs*.... perspective.  Also depends on how our DM staff see's the alingments and there guidelines.  I.E. alingment shifts for certain actions.  Wish you luck, I think what you wish to do is definetly the harder road, RWG, and perhaps even with greater rewards.  I always prefer neutral alingments, that  seems to allow for gameplay and ig experience's to dictate the evoultion of my chars. I found the DE Paladin types just excluded me from too many folks and plots that were fun!

Ask G.W. Bush, he seems to know a lot about the good and evil axis.

Oh, i forgot, he's retiring tomorrow.

I do not believe that there is any significant inherent difference in the challenge level between playing good and playing evil.

Usually it boils down to less experienced, more casual players generally preferring to play good aligned PCs, and thus it can be more difficult to corral a large number of them.

Metro, your statements contradict each other! But the latter in particular is very true. My previous post was an attempt to answer the question of "why is that so?", and it certainly failed to give a great answer.

Honor Before Reason (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HonorBeforeReason) cannot work in a world where Humans Are Bastards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumansAreBastards), but that seems to be exactly what the Paladin's code demands.

So we need to rock out the Hoarans until the nebulous forces of evil are easy enough prey for us to roll up some pallies and mop up the mess. It'll be worth it. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UtopiaJustifiesTheMeans)

They do not contradict each other Garem. Note the word 'inherent'. Now, look it up.

Yeah you see how you scum.

I've weighed in so often on this topic, I feel like you all could probably guess what I am going to say before I say it. That being the case, I'll just add that if you want to work toward "good" and against "evil" it helps to not be lawful good, at least on this server. The seekers were a great example of this in the past, and there are groups out there functioning similarly at present.

A few lawful good groups have had success, but as a whole they are faced with a simple choice off the bat: Spectate evil or die/get arrested/etc trying to fight it. In all my years playing, I've never seen good defeat evil in a straight up fight when plots were involved. I'm sure its happened, but I've never seen it.

Don't forget that good PC's will conflict with good PC's and evil PC's will conflict with evil PC's. It all depends on the type of character you are planning and how you want to go about your goals.

Want to make the ziggurat a better place? Lets look at it from a evil perspective:-

Cheat, lie, murder, backstab, sell your nan to the devil to get to the top spot for ultimate power. Then you can make any law you want.

Davril was going to make animation of the dead illegal and remove the cheerful dead from the mausoleum if things had gone his way. He was also going to impose a adventurers tax on you all to fund the ziggurat. Davrils goals were hardly evil at all, all he wished was some power and say so but had a very immoral way to go about it.

Now lets look at it from the Good perspective:-

Truthful words, promises to the people, using the legal system to fight injustice and corruption, join the guard to gain some say so about how laws are enforced. Make deals with groups to support you, help out key players in your good quest to become a influential individual and then make your move.

Two very different methods on how to achieve the same goal, it could be that the evil PC might need the aid of the good PC somewhere and vice versa. Unless the good PC is a paladin/crazy devote. Theres always room for comprimise and the chance to create more meaningful relationships/conflict between PC's.

Good characters won't get far by smiting everything they see. Trust me on this, I tried. :P

Inherent is very unspecific in the context of this discussion and of NWN/EfU. And I know the definition very clearly. I just disagree.

Inherent, as per mechanically? In that sense, well yea, of course. But that's obvious, and not the case being made in this discussion. The point I'm raising is that there IS a significant advantage when playing evil, inherently due to the nature of evil storylines/plots. The unchanging nature of how good rarely if ever gains notable victories on EfU, noted by PanamaLane's post, makes a strong case for my point. It is easier to rock out in the sandbox that is EfU when you're destroying things, creating havoc, because they require significantly less DM attention and more PC interaction than the opposite- the goodly quality of building, restoring, etc. So, because of the nature of EfU, evil-leaning plots are inherently easier to make awesome, thus gaining support from players, DMs, and gaining the loot, XP, etc. that comes to such awesomeness.

So, due to an inseparable element in the nature of evil plots due to the circumstances of the game and storyline development, evil is made easier TWICE (arguably three times!).

1) It is easier to make awesome, evil plots.
2) Great rewards come to those who make awesome plots, making more awesomeness possible (and stopping them that much more challenging to opposition).
3?) Because of these first two, players who want to achieve awesomeness (particularly veterans who know how it's done), gravitate towards evil characters making evil plots even easier to accomplish. (cite: RwG's return to EfU and rapid creation of awesomeness)

Veterans seem understand this, hence their gravitation towards evil. RwG, who is just now making the big bold leap into playing goodly characters noted it and started this discussion. Thus, I disagree with the first line of your first message (and have attempted to refute it), and still heartily agree with the second line.

Notice, I'm not trying to criticize, merely analyze. EfU has always been a very dark server. Evil is everywhere, always, and a constant threat. Orcs, Nightrisers, drow, spiders, Montezzi rulers, big friggen shadow dragons, the Spellguard, and the list goes on. But it makes EfU all the more special, in my opinion.

I think Caddies built a lot with his BANITE. I think RWG built a lot with his EVIL ROGUE. I think building has nothing to do with good, or evil, and more to do with time, inclination, and interest. I generally do not have the will to crush that I would need for a good PC. To call out evil. To rip down the edifaces they have constructed. To brutally stamp them out of existance for their crimes and  successes.

The problem with "good" and "evil" in most D&D universes are the following:

1)  The assumption that good and evil are always balanced when, let's face it, their not.
2)  Even *if* good will eventually win in the end people assume that good will always win over evil, or that people who fight evil people are good.
3)  People assume that good guys and bad guys know the other's alignment and will try killing each other and/or preparing to kill each other.  This is *NOT* Starcraft people, you cannot build up your forces in lightning speed and know automatically where the enemy is and then go back an' forth with the killing.
4)  Just because some one says they're good does not make them good.  (I'd like to see evil people talking about "Doing the Right Thing")
5)  Good guys work together, bad guys work together too, or that's what we'd like to believe.  But we all know that isn't the case.
6)  Lawful-Good means Lawful-Stupid, and that Chaotic-Evil means Obviously-Crazy.
7)  Beings and creatures born on the material plane can be born evil, such as orcs and gobbos, but cannot be born good.  Of course the idea that you're born evil on a True-Neutral plane is silly.

Really to me good means that not only are you willing to care for your family and close friends, but you're willing to care for complete strangers too.  That you're willing to show love or compassion even to those who hate you, but not expose yourself too much to danger.  And for me evil means that, sure you're willing to care for you family and close friends (or maybe not) but you really don't care who you hurt when accomplishing your goals.  Evil people can have redeeming qualities too you know.

Meh, I was using the term loosely, Gip, not so literally. Then again, even when evil builds, it's typically not for a constructive reason. In fact, I would say only very, very rarely do evil actions have constructive (intentional) outcomes. Evil laws break the fabric of society bit by bit. Evil societies/gangs/units tend to build their coalitions for the sake of self-empowerment; not necessarily constructive growth of the community. You are correct, of course, that good can be destructive in many ways. But never for the sake of destruction, it is ultimately for the "greater good" or something more specific and constructive.

Remember in DnD that:

Good is loving puppies, petting kittens, and having unicorns lick your face while sniffing flowers.

Evil is puppy chucking, kitten tossing, and stomping on the flowers while beating the dead unicorn you just disembowled.

Neutrals punch the good for picking the flowers to sniff, but run from the evil because they are so much cooler. And leet.

"Good" is the opposite of "Evil". That's how I see it. There is not necessarily balance; otherwise, why would Druids exist? However, there is opposition, conflict, and the attempt to balance. Both Good and Evil exist naturally, and one relies on the other to exist at all. In my opinion, there is no clear definition. To quote Kevin Spacey in K-Pax: "Every being in the universe knows right from wrong." Therefore, isn't Good the action taken against Wrong, and Evil the action taken against Right?

If you're going to go whip out your Joseph Butler, then I'm just going to Immanuel Kant you till you stop.

Are we really trying to define what is good and what is evil? Hell of an undertaking!

Hashif, you sound like your posters. so lol

Pancake, he's trying to stop, but he Kant!

This calls for moth. Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to post moth. Simply imagine moth. Right here.

__________________________________________________















































__________________________________________________

Lovethesuit, you are perilously close to being banned.

Good can and should be proactive. "Proactive evil" more often than not implies characters getting together and planning to destroy things, or build things that will lead to the destruction of others (such as a baron and his lieutenants planning to form a government that will slowly erode the freedom of the people). "Proactive good", in this vein, means that characters will get together and try to build things. Build a shelter, build an adventuring company that actively champions goodly goals. Build a government, build an inn, build a boat, build a Knightly Order, build a circle of mages, build up people's hopes and dreams.

By doing this you can easily throw evil into a 'reactive role'. This discussion, to me at least, ends as it always does. Good and evil in EfU undergo cycles. It might seem hard to be proactive now, but as soon as things 'click', evil might be sent reeling, tail tucked between its legs, and good will be allowed to build and flourish however they please.

Cycles, man.

I should have pointed out earlier that Good and Evil really aren't opposites (gasp).

On one hand you have a person who is good or does good things, they do it for the sake of other people, not just themselves and close friends/family.  However good people do try to stop evil actions from accruing as well, not just helping those already in harms way.  But this does not mean that good cannot exist without evil, it means good cannot exist without the knowledge of evil, there is a difference.

But Evil people, or those who do evil deeds, do so not because "The devil made me" or, "I'm Evil!  Look at my mighty L337 skillz!  MUHAHAHAHAHA!"  They do evil actions because they know the difference between good and evil and don't care.  They may not go out of their way to screw people over but if they hurt some people on their way to ambition than ohh well.  Some do find people to ruin for their own gain, but it is more likely that they just don't care.

On the subject of not caring and D&D, Neutral.  Even Neutral people care, a little, for the most part they help other people when it isn't a great inconvenience to themselves but when things start getting hard they might bail out.  On the other hand, they might perform minor sins if they figure it won't hurt other people too much, but have limits as to how far they would go.

When it comes to good and evil it's like (and I hate myself for this comparison) Light and Darkness.  Darkness is -not- the opposite of light, it is the absence.  So Evil is not the opposite of morality, but the lack their of.  This is like saying 0 is the opposite of 100 when we all know that -100 is the opposite of 100, and 0 is nothing, literally.  I mean have you looked at the numbering system for alignments in NWN?  100 means you're super Good, and 0 means you're super Evil.  0 is not Neutral and there is no such things as -100, or any negative numbers.

I'm not sure that's right; my understanding was that in the FR Evil is not an abstract concept (such as the absence of yet another abstract concept) but rather a tangible force, with a presence shaping the way things occur in the world, through the actions of mortals when necessary. In this sense, it is the very opposite of "Good", which is also defined as a tangible force, with a presence in the material world, yadda, yadda.

Dunno though.

Evil is definitely a tangible force, Look at the Abyss and the Nine Hells.

For a good character to do something against evil guys, he would first have to know who the evil guys are!

QuoteEvil is definitely a tangible force, Look at the Abyss and the Nine Hells.

The fact that in Ghostbusters 2 all the evil malignant emotions were a pink tangible slime supports TNVW. And you can't go against Ghostbusters, it's bad karma.

Ah, the ghostbusters defense! Brilliant.

[waves a little stuffed monkey] Hey look at the this monkey.