What does "Good" Mean to you?

[Random_White_Guy]

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?

[9lives]

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

[Luke Danger]

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

[Thomas_Not_very_wise]

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.

[Random_White_Guy]

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.

[IxTheSpeedy]

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...

[Egon the Monkey]

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.

[Howlando]

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.

[lovethesuit]

Good is obeying all the rules.

[Random_White_Guy]

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.

[Garem]

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

[efuincarnate]

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!

[Letsplayforfun]

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

Oh, i forgot, he's retiring tomorrow.

[Metro_Pack]

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.

[Garem]

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.