The main question
-
@e32d39352f=Wykith:
You have a very detailed perception of how alighnment should be played Green and that's fine. Use it however you feel you need to. If it works for you, well more power to you.
Fact is, evil IS ambiguous in Narf, because some DMs like it one way, and others another. Not everyone follows the prepackaged sealed and approved, written in stone facts described in the PHB. Hell…we have players and DMs in Narf that have never even SEEN the PHB, and they have just as much right to handle things the way they see fit in Narf as anyone else.
Not much more to say than that really, unless you're trying to change an entire server's views...and to that I can only say...I hope you have more luck than I've had in the past years
Nice reply!
Smiles
Obviously, if the various DMs are in a quandry about what to do with the alignment system, leaving it stuck in complete ruleless chaos, I am not so much trying to change the server's views, as to offer a logical, specific, possible solution that is based on Narfell's past history of looking to "classic D&D" for it's the vast majority of it's custom rules.
Perhaps I have not been clear about what I see as the problem with the way things sit.
I have no problems at all with the existance of evil player characters. I think the likes of Kuuzu and Chaevre adds to my character Green's goodness, much in the way that without the Devil, God becomes less hard to really "see". You need the point of referance to make the comparision to, and there's nothing like a working, acting evil mind to put you on edge.
I also generally enjoy the roleplaying possibilties.
The problems arise when you have a DM who supports out of character trust in CE and NE aligned characters who have no business at all helping each other when the chips are down.
If a CE goes down, or is badly hurt and vulnerable, his CE buddy should still be CE. He should not be allowed to revert to his NG "real self" OOC to rescue his OOC friend.
This is something that Good and and LN, N and sometimes CN will do…and in certain instances LE will do for family or comrades, but it should be rare in NE and CE characters.
Now you ask, why is this so?
Ok.
Evil characters have specific advantages built into them, if good and evil characters are played properly; and this applies to any referance to good and evil you can name…it isnt a D&D thing only.
Good characters have their own, singular advantage...which is working together with trust, which springs from their goodness. They have no other advantage.
Evil characters can loot, can steal, can cheat and do whatever the hell suits them if they dont get caught, or are strong enough to beat who catches them.
This, in a game where coin is very hard to come by honestly, where magic armor and a good weapon means the difference between life and death and loss of levels, is a huge, built in advantage.
Let us look at my character, Green Starfire.
She is NG, and I play her absolutely in this manner, by the D&D classic standards...because all of the other rules in Narfell lean towards these goals.
Do they not?
Green does not loot fallen players bags, and no DM or other player ever, not since level one, has seen her loot a bag, because she ha never once done it. She will carry around stuff for days to try to find the owner if neccessary, sometimes encumbering herself in the process, if it is a valuable item, and she knows the person even a little.
If she finds a body, she will carry it to town.
She actively walks the local wood south of Norwick, looking for newcomers in peril, because she thinks it is the right thing to do.
She freely bandages anyone woho is hurt…often offering if they do not ask, at cost to herself, while her counterpart evil players are freely taking everything not nailed down.
She makes camps for new players, and shows them how to survive in the woods, paying for the oil herself.
There is no Dm, no PG and no player in Narfell that has seen her turn down helping anyone with free bandages, food, or help of any kind.
It adds up.
It's also expensive.
Green has ten coin to her name, having ressurected some friends, lost a bag to Rass or Kuuzu/Mech, (dont know which), and having given the last of her loot to a newbie who lost all their items last night.
The result is that, hopefully, people come to trust Green Starfire. When she adventures with her comrades, it may be that she is not a good fighter up close, but everyone knows that if they fall, she will damn well sneak back for them at the cost of her life, no matter what she faces, because she is Neutral Good and plays the role out all the time.
Good has this specific advantage if you play it properly.
In Narfell, as things stand, Evil has this unfair advantage as well, because the Dms that watch the CE types, (in my opinion), mollycoddle them when they do not demand the CE to act like CE when the "time" arrives and their "associate" is weakened and has that lovely Horrid Plate of Awful Destruction right their for grabs.
Instead, the CE is allowed, for reasons I cannot begin to fathom, to jump OOC, and gets the bonus comradery of "not really being evil", at his or her convenience, if he or she so chooses.
These evil folks already have this advantage of no consciences over Green, who gives her stuff away, now they have the one thing that she has earned over huge amounts of time and effort…trust, as well.
An artificial, OOC trust, when they need it. Berift of alignment restrictions, they have the same trust amongst their pals as the good folks do...plus the normal evil advantage of being bad when it's handy.
See where I'm coming from?
That's where this chaotic, do whatever suits you, bad-when-it's convenient alignment no -ules gets you.
There needs to be set perimeters to follow, so each character knows what is acceptable and what is not, and the Dms can then interpet alignments within these guidelines.
It only makes sense.
Again, just my opinion. :oops:
-
You have a very detailed perception of how alighnment should be played Green and that's fine. Use it however you feel you need to. If it works for you, well more power to you.
Fact is, evil IS ambiguous in Narf, because some DMs like it one way, and others another. Not everyone follows the prepackaged sealed and approved, written in stone facts described in the PHB. Hell…we have players and DMs in Narf that have never even SEEN the PHB, and they have just as much right to handle things the way they see fit in Narf as anyone else.
Not much more to say than that really, unless you're trying to change an entire server's views...and to that I can only say...I hope you have more luck than I've had in the past years
-
Another of my patented "alignment" posts…but one with a lot of homework behind it.
@a22393e191=Wykith:
Evil is always going to be a problem defining because of how many definitions it has.
There is fantasy evil, fiction evil, real-life evil, comic book evil, and cartoon evil.
Personally I love the aspect of fiction and real-life evil over all the rest because I'm into realism.
Some might want an evil that is more defined like fantasy or cartoon evil.
Others like an evil that is pretty much defined but can sometimes give you a pleasant surprise or twist, something I've noticed in comic book evil.
Then there are the definitions we here have given them like covert evil and stupid evil.
So far Narf hasn't made a solid stand on how evil should be played (except for their no griefing policy) so we'll all just have to keep doing what we think is right until further notice. Some DMs will think we're doing a great job, others will think we're playing a really dumb version of evil.
Just like DMs can't please everyone, niether can we players.
Just one of those wonderful ambiguous little mind benders.
That is…unless the crew makes a firm stand on how evil should be played. Then we'd just have another long argument, and in the end, a few of us will either keep doing what we're doing or stop playing our evil PCs.
There is nothing, and shouldnt be anything, at all ambiguous about the alignments in Narfell. It's just that some people either dont wish to take the time to read up on the alignment they choose, or dont care to follow their alignment's restrictions, because it is only convenient for them in certain instances.
Of course, you have to take into account that Narfell is ultimately based on being a "true representation of a living, breathing D&D campaign world…set in Faerun", because this is the exact stated intent of Mas.
The arguments that it isnt D&D isnt supported by statements of the folks who created Narfell in the first place, nor in the rule changes unique to Narfell, which tend to move Narfell towards pen & paper D&D whenever and wherever it can.
And D&D alignments are very specifically mapped out based on very exacting specifications handled in the alignment descriptions. There is little that is ambiguous, or loosely described about what it means to be chaotic evil, neutral evil or lawful evil, just as the other alignments are clearly spelled out, so are the evil ones.
And equally clearly, Narfell has always tried to "look towards" the pen & paper rules for guidance.
Anyone familiar with the 3rd edition rules or classic D&D can see the hundreds of rule changes that directly reflect movement toward P&P D&D...it isnt even debatable.
The resting, healing, death, animal summoning, familiars, spell learning, spell durations and many other rules have been changed from the default NWN version to more closely reflect these pen & paper D&D rules, and I have little doubt that whenever possible, adhering to the D&D alignment descriptions, when it can be done, is the direction that Narfell ought to take, like it has in all other aspects whenever possible.
Where is the counterargument?
I am equally sure that there isnt any viable reason that the "classic" alignments cant be followed. It's just a matter of reading what they are, and choosing an alignment like you would your diety, and sticking within it's boundaries.
It's just that the boundaries for CE and NE are extremely difficult by virtue of their evil-ty, as they ought to be.
It's easy to be CN, CG, N, or NG and survive and have friends. It gives the widest range of choices…and if you dont want to be "stuck" being not trusted or loved...pick one of them!!! Where's the problem?
It's hard to be LG and live for long without dying or being broke in Narfell. Dont choose LG if you want to loot good folks and not be charitable to others, or if walking a straight and narrow path is unpleasant to you.
It's impossible to be CE and succeed at getting along with others for any length of time...as it should be!! There can be no other outcome, or you clearly arent CE. How is it a problem to veer clear of this alignment if you dont want a lonely, violent existance?
All alignments have room for some transgression on a day to day basis, and there is only a problem when folks only "fall outside" of their alignment at their convenience, like when a Lawful Good freely loots fallen adventurers bags with name tags on them, on a regular basis, without intention of returning the goods, knowing full well that they and their friends are often ressurrected; or when a Chaotic Evil has a bevy loyal, honest CE pals who they freely trust not to betray them or rob them when they are vulnerable.
Thats just bogus nonsense, that falls clearly outside of rping, and D&D, and any shade of logic, in my own opinion.
These are gross transgressions, and while occasionally lapses might be tolerable, making a habit of this sort of nonsense, ought to be vigorously acted against by the Dms, or alignments mean nothing whatsoever, and good and bad have no place in the game.
The idea that adhering to the specific, obvious, and demanding alignment "paths" of D&D is not possible in a persistant, large world, is ludicrous.
It's silly, in my opinion, because we are free to not choose to be a LG Paladin if we cant hack the steep hill one must climb to get there, and equally, we dont have to play a murderous, wife beating, not get laong with your neighbor route if that is not to our taste...so we dont go CE route.
One can have a "bad" organization that has CN, LE and N characters in it just fine. A "bad" guild neednt be made up of CE individuals to be generally "bad" in it's ambitious, secretive goals.
Many, many people fall into the trap, for some reason, of thinking that "CE" characters are needed to fill the ranks of Guilds of Thieves or villainous pirates, when this is nothing like how D&D or the real world operates. Basing alignments on a mix of "relative chaos-lawfulness" and "good-badness" is there to reflect every extreme of a person that can possibly exist. Think about that.
The entire concept of CE is based on not getting along! Folks stuck on a pirate ship for months weeded out the CE types and chucked them to the sharks, because otherwise, everyone would have been dead in a week or two in those close quarters and no plundering would have been done for the gain of all. LE, LN, CN and N were the stuff of pirates, because they needed desperately to cooperate.
All my long winded opinions, of course, but they are based on the way all the other aspects of Narfell have been handled, and it's easy to see that while it would be difficult to enforce, that it would lead to a much more realistic and honest in character experiance, and playing LG or CE would be the exacting, extreme event that it ought to be, by any reasonably thought out standard.
In the end, if you are going to have a system of good and evil and chaos and order that allows for a Paladin at one extreme, you have to allow for all types…which includes the other extreme.
It's simple logic.
You cant gut one end of the alignment spectrum without skewing the whole structure.
At that other extreme CE, all of the rules, and plain common sense tell us, folks dont and shouldnt get along very well at all.
Narfell really ought to have a written, stated policy that clearly spells out what it means to be CE, and each of the various alignments, as it is the basis for the very soul for each characters, and of paramount importance to interaction on the server.
It is vital for the fairness of interacting with others, for balanced treatment by the various DMs, and really, for understanding the envelope in which one's character operates on a daily basis.
In my opinion, the matter rests on this question. Does Narfell strive to be a "true representation of a living, breathing D&D campaign world", or doesnt it?
:twisted:
-
Evil is always going to be a problem defining because of how many definitions it has.
There is fantasy evil, fiction evil, real-life evil, comic book evil, and cartoon evil.
Personally I love the aspect of fiction and real-life evil over all the rest because I'm into realism.
Some might want an evil that is more defined like fantasy or cartoon evil.
Others like an evil that is pretty much defined but can sometimes give you a pleasant surprise or twist, something I've noticed in comic book evil.
Then there are the definitions we here have given them like covert evil and stupid evil.
So far Narf hasn't made a solid stand on how evil should be played (except for their no griefing policy) so we'll all just have to keep doing what we think is right until further notice. Some DMs will think we're doing a great job, others will think we're playing a really dumb version of evil.
Just like DMs can't please everyone, niether can we players.
Just one of those wonderful ambiguous little mind benders.
That is…unless the crew makes a firm stand on how evil should be played. Then we'd just have another long argument, and in the end, a few of us will either keep doing what we're doing or stop playing our evil PCs.
-
You do that and bring us back a nice detailed story Ribs!
-
I'll have to find my comic collection from the 70s. There were a few special issues (they were huge, like 2' x 1'), including one with a Batman story where he kills an old Nazi gone into hiding after WW2. The details are hazy having not read it in 20 years or so.
-
..Meh! Who bumped this thread?! My last post here dates from March the 5th, in Deacon's starting days :twisted:
-
@af0910fcc1=Zyphlin:
Does he kill anyone in anything other then self defense?
He does not.
The original, award winning, four part Dark Knight graphic novel by Frank Miller is the perfect example of the sometimes subtleties in what makes on "good" or "neutral" or "evil", and is really beautifully written, unlike most of the dog crap that follows it.
Together with Miller's later "Batman: Year one", these two bookends to Batman's career, for me anyways, define what Batman is, and he is ultimately good.
A dark and often troubled good, but good none the less.
Miller manages to pit him against Supe at the end of the last book, and somehow manages to keep Bats alignment firmly in the "good" category from start to finish.
We sometimes forget that "good" is not neccessarily about light and sunshine and bunnies. It can be dark and based on pain and suffering and stealth and, well, have bats involved.
If your heart is true, your intentions selfless and based on protecting the weak and punishing evil doers, and you dont break basic tenents you know in your heart are "right"….you are good.
It isnt about how you "look" at all, nor is it about being non-violent.
The alignment descriptions used in D&D are really good guides, and ought to be followed when you decide to take up a new character in every aspect of your life.
It's the basis of your character's soul, so to speak, and has nothing to do with how you dress or look. It has to do with how you react to everyone and everything around you....including your friends.
Too many times we interpret the alignments in whatever way is convenient, when often, we ought to simply pick an alignment that actually fits the character we want to play, instead of twisting the alignment wildly away from it's specific definition to fit the circumstance we later find ourselves in.
My opinion only of course!
:oops:
-
You know who are the greatest examples of evil given some of the opinions about evil I've seen lately?
Skeletor and Cobra Commander.
-
Does he kill anyone in anything other then self defense?
-
@94675e21f6=Father:
I have two characters that are evil, but my version of evil isn't "opposed to good" type evil, more of having a different approach to things than a good person has.
Batman is my favorite example. Not TV batman, even the new, more mature cartoon version, but the Batman from the past, the Dark Knight. Why let someone (whom Batman sees as "the bad guy") get to prison? Killing them saves anyone from having to deal with them, prevents them from escaping for more mischeif, and also allows him to work out his own problems without hurting people who don't deserve it.
Some people challenge who they see as wrongdoers by puffing out their chest, drawing their sword, and charging in. Stupid stupid, says one of my evil characters. Better to put a trap on their door, shoot them from a window, or poisen their food. If they take a hostage, if it looks like the baddie is going to get away, better the hostage die than the baddie gets away.
Interrogation? Current interrogation techniques can do amazing wonders without the need for physical torture, but the time involved may be too much for a gaming session (how do you RP sleep deprevation, messing with environmental conditions, withholding food?)…so in this instance perhaps fishhooks under fingernails may get what is needed where a good person would balk (or get evil points).
This is not evil. Frank Miller's subtle and beautifully handled original "Dark Knight" four part story, which started the whole nitty gritty dark superhero trend does nothing evil at all, as evil is specifically described in the various alignments.
The Dark Knight is a good alignment person who has been driven to extreme actions as a result of overwhelming evil forces starting to win the day.
Where does The Batman do one evil thing, or think one evil thought in the course of Miller's great original storyline?
-
But then where's the challenge in that? Challenge = fun and fun = what we are all here for, right?
Don't you all just love my little equations? :lol:
And if the militia doesn't know it is you causing trouble, then they be after your head.
That is what makes it so fun to play evil, the challenge and skill that is involed in order to fullfill evil deeds without people finding out who is doing it.
-
Because you don't get the troff legion/pally brigade/militia on your head
Also it's alot less taxing to play a good char then it is an evil one, because most of us have been taught to be relativly nice to others so it comes naturally.
-
Why play Evil in Narf? Well, there is only one answer to that, of course….
**Because you can! 8O
No, really. People play evil in Narfell for the same reason people play good. First of all because it is there and readily available to anyone willing to play it. Second, evil can be expressed in a variety of ways, just as good is (everyone has their own style of RP). Third, evil is merely a way of life, just as good is, and therefore should be just as prominent as good.
I believe that half the reason evil does not prosper in Narfell is because people (both evil AND good) treat it too much like it is in movies, where evil is always the big mean bad guy, the bad guys does something really evil like pose a bomb threat upon an entire city, and in the end the good guy always thwarts the bad guy's plans and destroys him as well. Sound familiar? I also agree that people who plan to actually go somewhere with their evil characters should RP their evilness more discretely, but that decision is completely up to the person playing the character.
The way I view evil is exactly how I view good. I see evil as a way of life, but one that is completely different than that of good. Opposing views on life = conflict, argument, bad feelings = choas, killing, hatred, **war.
I think the real question here should be :
Why play good in Narf? :twisted:****
-
I think pirates can be Neutral, or even neutral good. Because there are many tipes of them, the ones who kill the people and take the gold, and the ones that have learn when they were little, to steal things, and they thing that´s good,there are much more tipes of pirates
.I think evil, apeares when the person who is being evil, is perfectly concious of his actions.
-
The pirates code…if you can't keep up...you die.
Yeah, while pirates may break the laws...they have alot of rules to follow, though I see them as a CE in some areas and LE in others. Plus, pirates are not all the same. So pirates under once captain could be more like buccaneer/swashbuckler types while pirates under another could be more of a ruthless cutthroat type.
-
Yes you can, and in fact there were a number of established codes that pirates lived by. One has to remember, a sailing ship was a complex affair, that required a large number of people, the majority of which were needed mostly in combat/boarding or handling the sails, but the rest of the time were given makework to keep them busy.
Here's a little site for a little light reading. Note the "disability payments". Intresting, and logical, stuff.
-
Hey lets put that behind us mae
-
I don't think of Deacon as evil, just rough. Amy would be very dissapointed if he turned out evil.
Besides, can you have 'lawful' pirates? Even LE ones?
-
I started playing evil cause i saw oppertunities in narfell for one, at mae's time, there was no real organisation established in jiyyd or norwick, Mae being ratted out, her organisation is history, but her brother is eager to pick up, needed a excuse for my sailor to go pirating in the future, so i chose LE, intentional evil only showing it when you see reason to, nothing more. I play him as CN though, but that's my own weak rp
