Playing evil on the surface

[Wrips]

I played an evil character some months ago. It was an awesome experience up until I reached the epics. He did stay in Brogendenstein for almost 1 IG year and, as a lawful evil character, it was great the interaction with the players there. Particularly, the conciliation between his respect for the hospitality and the cynicism of dealing with potential future enemies was interesting.

After that, however, there was an episode where I and another fellow player got involved in a random pvp versus another player...all I can say is that the character became unplayable after that...

I know you've only asked for positive experiences but I learned that when you play an evil character, your experience and enjoyment don't depend solely on you but on the behavior of the other players as well and, in this case, I found them to be extremely detrimental to the point I decided to roll the character a couple months later.

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

Does good truly have to win all the time? I feel like it should be more of a back and forth thing.

Good doesn't always have to win, but it usually has to win when it matters, or the story tends to grind to a screeching halt.

To use a light-hearted example, take the reason Wile E. Coyote never got to eat the Road Runner for dinner. Besides the fact that it was a cartoon marketed to young(er) children, unlike broken bones and burns, cartoon magic doesn't readily heal being digested and would "end the story." It's also why Sylvester never ate Tweety Bird or Speedy Gonzalez (although he admittedly got much closer than Wile. E ever did).

As long as people continue to enjoy watching the Coyote go splat, he is never going to get his Meep Meep dinner.

Of course, the odd exception exists- there is an opera episode involving Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny. Spear and Magic Helmet. But guess what? Bugs Bunny hit that respawn button for the next cartoon.

I would refrain from using cartoons IRL to explain away why Good always "has" to win. Those cartoons are teaching a moral lesson. And theres only a dichotomous relation between the Good guy and the Bad guy, so if Bad wins, then Good disappears.

I like GrumpyCat's explanation better. Good wants to keep the established status quo in balance, and evil wants to upset that balance. But I don't want anyone to go around and say that at the end of EVERY single narrative plot line, good HAS to win by some unspoken rule of the server.

Lets just use your example then. In Arelith if the good aligned players were Speedy Gonzalez and the evil aligned players Wile Coyote, then who cares if Speedy Gonzalez gets eaten? The show isn't over, there are tons of other Speedy Gonzalez's everywhere. Is it impossible to make some sort of dystopia? I don't see why evil couldn't win and continue winning.

EDIT: Sorry if this is a bit off topic from the OP's requested discussion.

The idea I'm attempting to present isn't that a Road-Runner can't ever get hit by a car or eaten by a Coyote. The idea I'm presenting is that when say, Elmer Fudd, Marvin Martian, Wile E. Coyote, and Sylvester the Cat all get together and form a diabolical plot to extract their revenge on all bunnies, birds, and earthlings once and for all, if Good doesn't win here, the story ends.

I present it in the light of Good Must Always Win because by the nature of their role in any story, it's usually not the good side pushing the world-ending cataclysm that ends the story (exceptions exist: See Dawn Cataclysm).

You can create some sort of dystopia where there's no good left because it's all been stomped out, but that isn't really the narrative of FR (or Arelith, traditionally, in my experience); it's more prevalent in places like Ravenloft.



More on topic: My favorite evils have been the ones who aren't plotting to end the world/civilization as arelith knows it, with a more "humanly" relatable set of goals and desires (wealth, comforts, influence, companionship- because even evil can have people they value).

I miss Helene!

[Tarkus the dog]

I have to add that I'm also a bit surprised to hear this coming from you, someone I've always had great time playing with.

[Baron Saturday]

I have to add that I'm also a bit surprised to hear this coming from you, someone I've always had great time playing with.

Heh, well, that's why I was asking for recent positive experiences. A lot has changed since I created Helene, and I'm coming to appreciate just how lucky I got to meet the characters and players that I did with her. This thread has certainly given me some ideas on how to handle playing evil on the surface in present-day Arelith, so hopefully I'll be pulling a character off the shelf soon.

[Nobs]

Love to play evil on the surface and open evil at that.

And yes when you get outed as the evil fella/woman it gets hard to move around BUT i take it as a ooc compliment.
There is no better ic compliment to a openly evil toon then having a bunch of good/neutrals going after you toon , It meens you are playing your openly evil toon correct in my opinion.

And no....when evil wins a big day its not the end....its the beginning for a great adventure for the players of good toon.

To give a simple example...
Lets say all the stars align and some evil faction takes a city over and is trying to turn it into a necropolis.
The story is not over then.
Its the start for a good campain to take the city back and stop this evil faction.

[Nobs]

And dont forget.

Its easy to be a hero when times are good.
Its a true hero that fights when times are bad and gows agains all odds to save the day.

[flower]

Well, why not just play a character who is part of an settlement and is evil? Evil does not mean plotting against own city, killing and murdering own companions. It also can be a character who just lacks any moral standings when dealing enemies (even other evil ones, being evil elf does not mean to kick for drow faction and so on!). Thus being just efficient, good and famous officer who is also known for being able to do anything to his foes to get his orders trough. Being lawful would also mean only thing restricting you in attrocities are commands not to by superiors and / or fear of consequences of doing so ("If i just murder this annoying guy They gonna trial me…")

Edit:
To make game only simple Good vs Evil would overly simplified and dull playtrough.

[Nobs]

Well, why not just play a character who is part of an settlement and is evil? Evil does not mean plotting against own city, killing and murdering own companions. It also can be a character who just lacks any moral standings when dealing enemies (even other evil ones, being evil elf does not mean to kick for drow faction and so on!). Thus being just efficient, good and famous officer who is also known for being able to do anything to his foes to get his orders trough. Being lawful would also mean only thing restricting you in attrocities are commands not to by superiors and / or fear of consequences of doing so ("If i just murder this annoying guy They gonna trial me…")

Edit:
To make game only simple Good vs Evil would overly simplified and dull playtrough.

Yup thats the game we play you can play any thing you want

[Nobs]

And what is dull for you may be fun for some one els who knows , we are all difrent people after all.
And thats a good thing.

[flower]

And what is dull for you may be fun for some one els who knows , we are all difrent people after all.
And thats a good thing.

I just implied there are many ways to play evil which is not persecuted on sight, and it is fully your choice which way of playing evil you pick...with all what belongs to it.

[Nobs]

And what is dull for you may be fun for some one els who knows , we are all difrent people after all.
And thats a good thing.

I just implied there are many ways to play evil which is not persecuted on sight, and it is fully your choice which way of playing evil you pick...with all what belongs to it.

Dont think you have read my first post

[sad_zav]

"There's a goblin on the trader's route!"

"Ya"


Unless it's something out of the ordinary like a drow or an imp, I tend to let it be

[-XXX-]

Constructing devious plots designed to make the "good guys" stray from the path of righteousness used to be quite enjoyable.

It's not so much anymore for me, because from my experience:

• Team good guys can get away with being as atrocious as the most devious villain for as long as "they're fighting the bad guys".
  After all, who wouldn't want to play a socially acceptable Batman? After all LG =/= Lawful Nice. But wait - even Batman doesn't kill, bad example, my bad...

• Many "heroes" opt to take the respawn now and expose your evil after, claiming their "win" that way.
  This inevitably leads to the villain archetype players either forming skill-oriented discord gank squads with ultra gear and optimal builds or them individually growing very particular of who they choose to play an antagonist for on an OOC level ~ both options deepening division whithin the player base by creating exclusive cliques.

[Hazard]

Constructing devious plots designed to make the "good guys" stray from the path of righteousness used to be quite enjoyable.

It's not so much anymore for me, because from my experience:

• Team good guys can get away with being as atrocious as the most devious villain for as long as "they're fighting the bad guys".
  After all, who wouldn't want to play a socially acceptable Batman? After all LG =/= Lawful Nice. But wait - even Batman doesn't kill, bad example, my bad...

• Many "heroes" opt to take the respawn now and expose your evil after, claiming their "win" that way.
  This inevitably leads to the villain archetype players either forming skill-oriented discord gank squads with ultra gear and optimal builds or them individually growing very particular of who they choose to play an antagonist for on an OOC level ~ both options deepening division whithin the player base by creating exclusive cliques.

Accurate.

[Cerk Evermoore]

Constructing devious plots designed to make the "good guys" stray from the path of righteousness used to be quite enjoyable.

This is still great fun and is amazing. Just harder to do sometimes because a some players don't want to join you and get murdered / exiled by every other city.

[The GrumpyCat]

Constructing devious plots designed to make the "good guys" stray from the path of righteousness used to be quite enjoyable.

It's not so much anymore for me, because from my experience:

• Team good guys can get away with being as atrocious as the most devious villain for as long as "they're fighting the bad guys".
  After all, who wouldn't want to play a socially acceptable Batman? After all LG =/= Lawful Nice. But wait - even Batman doesn't kill, bad example, my bad...

• Many "heroes" opt to take the respawn now and expose your evil after, claiming their "win" that way.
  This inevitably leads to the villain archetype players either forming skill-oriented discord gank squads with ultra gear and optimal builds or them individually growing very particular of who they choose to play an antagonist for on an OOC level ~ both options deepening division whithin the player base by creating exclusive cliques.

Which is curious, because whilst reports of said good guy being naughty are far more common than of bad guys being good.


But there's a bit of talk about 'winning' and 'loosing'. I have two points to make on this, and they work for both sides.

1) Manage your expectations.
If your idea of your character winning is - Permakilling a PC, destroying a settlment, reducing a pc to something akin to your utter slave - Then you're going to likely meet with dissapointment.
When you look for a 'win' ask yourself, 'Would I myself do this were our situations reversed?' 'How would I react to this?' 'Is what I am asking for reasonable for the player?'
Big Wins (e.g. permadeath, perminent enslavement, ect) are always going to be rare, and as most Big Wins are down to the choice of the loosing player to an extent, you should be privilaged by their offer. Don't start off on ANY side going, 'Well, if I don't end up as the lord supreme ruler of this settlment, with 30 permakills under my belt, a million loyal and ravenous slaves, and literally every single foe rping urinating themselves at the very mention of my name - then I've just not won enough!'

Keep your win expecations small. Remember that a 'win' includes people knowing who you are. A 'Win' includes people being willing to fight against you in the first place. A good 'win' can be as small as getting a good emotional reaction out of another character.

Enjoy the small wins, relish the tiny victories rather than always seeking the huge ones. If the huge ones come? Awsome. Be happy. But no one -deserves- a big 'Win'.

Whether you're playing a Lawful Good Zealot or a Chaotic Evil savage, you don't have the right to demand that any other PC utterly derails their concept for your enjoyment. If they do that, then that is one of the greatest honrous that /Player/ has decided to bestow upon you. Be humbled and greatful for it, not annoyed and entitled.

2: Give Back
Ok so you've Gotten A Win against the other side.
Maybe the win is big. Maybe it's small. But another player has decided to react in an interesting and fun and entertaining way to your play. You've managed to maim the Dreadlord Vaxx. You've tortured the Holy Cleric of Tyr Bobby. You've outsmarted the whily merchant Joe! Huzzah!
Now - return the favour.
When they're in a position where they've got you at a disadvantage, (e.g. after pvp, during capture, or even as a result of some cunning ploy they've done) - go with the flow. Give them THEIR win.

If you're aiming to be the Guy Who Always Wins (good OR evil!) people will get annoyed. Good roleplayers don't mind loosing soemtimes, heck, they don't mind loosing a chunk of the time, but it's only fair to ask for some of that back now and then. To keep the narrative flow going. To make it more 'give and take.' If it seems that every interaction is just about your own character being victorious and agrandizing themselves, with no room for furthering of story, or conflict, or give and take - then people arn't going to be interested.

TL;DR: Manage your expecations on the type and size of your 'win.' Neither Good Nor Evil is 'entitled' to any roleplayed victory. Such a thing must be given and/or earned. And when it is given, it is good to give back, because that will encourage others to make a more interesting and dynamic story.

[-XXX-]

GrumpyCat, I think that you missed my point this time, really.

Good guys behaving bad used to be a big deal and so was turning such characters a mirror to let them see what they've become. Gradually the perception of "the good guy" has shifted to the "same bad as the bad guys just wearing a different team dress" which is being reflected in the way they are treated by their own player and the other players.

[TongueInCheekAlert]
1) Why manage your expectations when you can make another character virtually unplayable? Just sit and wait uniteractively until your opposition finally quits. EZ win right there!

2) Give back? Why? I can win without even facing my opponents ...or their consent. Why should I deliberately lose to them when half of the time they don't even know that it was me who foiled them?
[/TongueInCheekAlert]

Neither Good Nor Evil is 'entitled' to any roleplayed victory.

There is a rather large and very vocal chunk of the player base that firmly believes the exact opposite.
You could easily quote direct contradictions to your statement by them on this very forums.

[Baron Saturday]

I believe this thread has produced all the positive advice that it is going to. Could this be locked, please?

[Cerk Evermoore]

Before we lock this thread, playing evil on the surface can be very rewarding, you get to rp with more of the playerbase and it opens up a bunch of opperunities for character interaction that you might not get playing in UD.

Has its highs and lows and its certainly a wild ride.

[DM Wraith]

At the request of Original poster this thread is being locked.