The trouble with Factions

[PanamaLane]

Lot of good points made all around.

Factions are fantastic, I'd like to see more good factions with powerful NPC's supporting them. I actually was approved for the Fleet and no DM had the time sign me up for weeks. Granted, DC has been out and the Fleet was his "baby", but the lack of support there eventually turned me off. So you look elsewhere and you quickly come to the conclusion that there really is no DM supported good faction atm. So you decide to build your own, but it takes a lot of slow, steady, sustained effort. Which is cool, of course, but don't expect to get there right away, it may take months.

 In general, my good characters have had to start from nothing and build something almost entirely by themselves. My evil characters have often met powerful patrons off the bat and been "handed" all the tools to put them on the fast track to success. The irony is that in real life, it usually works the other way. I really do believe that the general DM base is inclined to focus its attention on evil. I've been saying it for years, so why stop now? Even if that attention doesn't come in the form of loot, its beneficial, trust me on that.

In any event, its not worth getting all worked up about. Its kind of just the way things are, and I don't expect it to really change. Good will have its hayday again, when they work their asses off for it.

But there is a reason why this topic keeps coming up, I believe.

[Sternhund]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I'd like to mention that power is cyclical. It comes in phases, and remember we are playing in a growing setting. You all entered a gameworld that was literally a blank slate, and as time progresses, you the players will be integral in developing factions that do have those rivalries like the Spellguard/Seekers, and the Tigereye/Watch had.

This is like an early phase of struggle, and not necessarily a bad thing. We're definitely not trying to overpower one faction to trump all the others, and we're being careful to make sure that factions remain interesting and rich.

[Jayde Moon]

The problem with factions is that I'm not in the one that gives out the most loot.

[Mort]

I'm curious as to what are these factions that get all the attention and loot?

[Calculor]

I believe that post was tongue-in-cheek, ser mort.

[PanamaLane]

Historically, the evil ones, imo.

As I mentioned above though, good gets loot and attention too, they just tend to have to work harder for it, building from the bottom an outlasting those that want them dead.

This isn't to say its a bad thing either, just how I've usually seen it breakdown. I happen to hold the -opinion- that DM's enjoy playing with evil characters more often then good. Often because these characters get into more trouble, which is fun to watch.

It's a generality I've choosen to draw, and you can't make me undraw it!

[derfo]

Evil is usually proactive, and good usually reactive. From what I've seen in my time here, good or evil, it's usually the proactive characters that come out on top. Whenever the tilt of good or evil is not in your favor, it just gives more opportunity for people to oppose.

[Nihm]

There were around 20 pcs watching while Olid's mage summoned undead to kill Jack Black while he was manacled, nobody lifted a finger.  After that point if your PC who was there or heard of that didn't realize something stank about that band, they must have six Intelligence.
 
Instead, when its too late people start making half ass attacks by themselves, without trying to recruit the help of other groups that probably would oppose Olid as well.
 
They then wonder why the faction is so powerful.  Well, its because you all let them get that way and then engage in suicidal attacks by yourselves.  The montezzis were the same as the dwarves and the spellguard and whomever else happily fought them one by one instead of combining forces.  Actually before the spellguard assault in which they were wiped out, my barbarian was running around upper screaming about how she wanted revenge on the Montezzis.  Pretty sure having a frontliner there on their side might've made at least a small difference, but they weren't interested in a free ally.  Just one small example of myopic faction behavior.
 
.

[PanamaLane]

Not every group/character is going to be proactive in a PvP kind of way. Its these good characters that are often forgotten about for months at a time. Meanwhile, they could be doing some really great things for the server as a whole. Typically evil does involve itself in PvP and reaps ridiculous rewards from it.

Then when something happens that thrusts those good players into action, they are usually sorely behind on loot, lvls and consumables and thus die.

[Valium Skies]

OMG, HI ARMAND WATERS FAN GIRL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-Armand Waters FanBoy89

[Vlaid]

Not every group/character is going to be proactive in a PvP kind of way. Its these good characters that are often forgotten about for months at a time. Meanwhile, they could be doing some really great things for the server as a whole. Typically evil does involve itself in PvP and reaps ridiculous rewards from it.

Then when something happens that thrusts those good players into action, they are usually sorely behind on loot, lvls and consumables and thus die.

That is a good summary of why it is harder to play Good most of the time.

We need more paladins to make powerquesting harder for evil! XD

I mean, just look at how hard the militia has been struggling to form, and by comparison if they were a group far more sinister in nature....well they'd done be formed by now and the populace cowering before them. It's not something the DM's do, just the way it is.

Evil is so tempting because it's the quick path to power. Ask any sithlord!

[Caddies]

I don't find the argument that playing Evil PCs is easier than playing Good PCs because Evil PCs get huge rewards from PvP very convincing at all. A proactive Good PC has just as many PvP opportunities available to them as an Evil PC.

No alignment is specifically 'harder' to play than another, be it Chaos/Law or Evil/Good. The server does not cater to any alignment axis at the expense of another; if you believe it does, you are sadly mistaken. After years of experience creating and maintaining amazing settings for us to play in, I believe the DM team is fully aware that incorporating an inherent bias to one alignment spectrum in the gameworld would be undesirable.

What makes temporary, fleeting disturbances in this otherwise even playing field is the rise and fall of specific characters. One need only recount the era of Valaron and his dominant Watch cohort, or Rinaldo and his ruling House Montezzi, to see the impact PCs make in this regard. And, as explained a thousand times over, this is cyclical.

[Wern8]

I believe that Goldfishpie and PanamaLane are quite correct in their comments that Good Aligned PCs are more difficult to play successfully, takes way more effort to succeed as a Good PC than an Evil one and for them to dominate a cycle. Secondly, I do think that all of you who disagree should be less defensive, for one it is true that there are ever changing cycles that will always be happening, however it is clear that it is rare for Good Aligned PCs to be the dominating force of a cycle, Valaron, the Watch and New Dunwarren's time was surely one, but other than that I cannot think of any other time, except maybe for the recent rebellion before the ascension, where the rebels basically dominated.

Thirdly, though mostly of a reply to Caddies. I am sure the DM team is aware that a bias to one alignment spectrum would be bad for the server and the setting, but everyone is biased or slightly so, same with the DMs and we cannot always think that the DMs are more correct than the players even if they know more of what goes on than the players, if this concern is all wrong, why have these posts keep coming up? There is nothing wrong to admit that it is indeed more difficult to play Good Alignment, and especially the Lawful Good Alignment on EFU. At the same time though, I do admit that many Good PCs, sometimes including myself have been lax in being pro active.

[Goldfishpie]

I agree with Wern and PanamaLane’s posts, the DMs have a tendency to line towards the ”evil axis”, and should perhaps be less defensive when this is pointed out. The evil alignment has features that are more attractive simply because it can be more fun due to the nature of the alignment (no scruples, torture, blackmail, assassinate, plot world domination, or snuggle the undead, what is there not to love?) However, good characters are often in the situation that they have to be reactive and it can be difficult to be as proactive as evil, and thus some may think it is less fun. DMs should perhaps not necessarily "help" Evil just because they are being proactive since it is naturally for them to be so.

[Mort]

The grass is most likely greener on the otherside of whatever kind of characters you prefer to play. I can *assure* you that evil is really not on any checklist that I have before I give attention, loot or whatever. In fact- It's usually much easier for people who play evil all the time to receive some badpress from the DMs as they might unwillingly or willingly engage in something that we deem "not-flavorful". Evil is harder to play fairly, hence, it's something that we do watch out for more and pay more attention to. But it's necessairly not to reward.

Toward the end of the server, the lovely seeker/rebellion group was dominant and likely had combined the most perks, loot, blue-berries, whatever, etc. of all the other groups. *gasp*

Currently, the only bias that may be is toward those that play around the EST time frame :( simply because it is the place where we had/have the most coverage.

I'm really not convinced that the reason for more attention is being evil, both from past experience having played all alignment axis and the balance of attention that we give currently. Seems just a way to say the server is tilted toward whatever you personally play :/