There is no reason to play evil on surface anymore

[Twily]

Irongron summed it up rather well.


Cheesy PvP tactics, borderline-metagaming RP to 'out' people, it's always been a thing that happens. I don't see any more of it now than I did in the past, and it's in as poor taste now as it was back then(potentially even landing you in DM trouble if severe and reported).

Although, over time I do feel Arelith has grown increasingly more competitive, and that the desire for competition has increased with it, resulting in these more frequent jumps to PvP.
With this, I have also seen powerbuilds becoming more normalized and even encouraged by many players. I've been personally insulted and seen others insulted specifically for having a 'sub-optimal' build for roleplay's sake(not something I ever saw many years back). It's a bit of a separate topic, but I do feel it is related.
More desire for competition and more powerbuilds results in more PvP, and the more normalized a PvP solution becomes the more it happens.

It becomes really easy to forget that there's solutions beyond 'just kill them'.

And I think that's the biggest take away that both sides need to remember.
PvP is the climax to conflict, not the entirely of it.

[Yolrii]

Most of the people you think are good are probably actually Neutral.

Because I found when playing something that was good, the server had little patience for it.

Maybe the server just rejects extremes right now. That could change, as soon as a group comes along that changes the status quo some.

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

Edit: Yes, there are players who like to win, and will attempt to do so at the cost of engaging fiction, and that is a great pity. But I do not see that having all that much to do with choice of alignment.

Bolded and underlined for emphasis on a fantastic summary of a great majority of the sentiment of this thread.

Discussing the nature of this particular perceived problem (I'm not denying it exists, although I perceive it as a function of something much deeper than a "Team Good" vs. "Team Evil" generalization.) As, I believe OP, put it, it is systemic, in a way.

Let us start with the fact that we are a sandbox, but we are a sandbox set in a high fantasy narrative. Now, let us also all agree that it is a persistent high fantasy narrative.

Regardless of who is playing good or evil, be it this player or that player (maybe the next go around they've swapped sides), the problem is the expectation of the sandbox.

This high fantasy narrative requires good characters to be proactive- as our dwarfly friend pointed out, good likes to stamp out embers before they can become a blaze. But this isn't just a like for them- it is the moral imperative of good in this high fantasy universe to do such.

In my experience playing good characters (because I find the challenge of trying to help save the day within a set of moral obligations to be more fun than trying to be the bad guy most times- it's hard to keep such experiences from being a dark and grim thing for me), being a good character that staunchly stands by these standard lore principles of good and evil is more of a rarity than evil characters. Rather than being lauded as paragons of the virtues they uphold, they are mocked for being narrow-minded...

I agree that violence is too often the go-to solution of many such interactions (most likely because it's easier than engaging in the long-term internal conflict for the character in coping with their empathy for a foe they're ultimately still compelled to oppose), but the same realms that permit temples to evil gods like Talos out of fear also look upon such people (like paladins) with reverence and awe for the defense against such forces that they represent. Even a career thief who is innocent of this crime should have some sense of relief knowing a paladin is his judge on this day.

Let us not also forget playing an Evil character comes with a specific handicap- a persistent high fantasy narrative world cannot support a PLAYER character whose goal is world destruction or world domination- at least, it can't support their success in such endeavors. Ultimately, at some point, even just before they achieve ultimate victory, they must fail- or the story ends.

TL;DR
The ultimate truth of this problem, in my opinion, is that most people are playing Neutral characters and they don't realize it. Truly Evil characters and truly Good characters are both a minority, although I would hazard a guess that a sample of a month's logins for alignments would reveal that character sheets don't suggest as much.

[AdreannaDrea]

I think the best advice I ever received in my, gods, nine years of playing here? - Was "be the change you want to see."

That's not to say your issues aren't real and sucky, but just giving up won't achieve anything. Gather a group of friends, make some evil faction, if you get killed then you get killed but at least you're not doing it solo.

[Marsi]

The root of the problem, as pointed out already and on all such threads as these, is the lack of a place for evil to exist on the surface. It is a glaring flaw in Arelith's current political geography.

Most of the people you think are good are probably actually Neutral.

Because I found when playing something that was good, the server had little patience for it.

Maybe the server just rejects extremes right now. That could change, as soon as a group comes along that changes the status quo some.

Totally agreed. I think the surface suffers oppression of the Neutrals. These guys, with their non-committal politics, water down conflict and strangulate any kind of extreme thought. They have far too many safe spaces and have strongly benefited from the recent direction the server has taken that appears pro-mechanics and anti-warfare -- they thrive on the lack of volatility or means of impeachment. I just can't agree with the notion of team good domination, and suspect it's more an issue relating to the recent influx of novice roleplayers who don't really get "it" yet, for whom hurriedly lynch-mobbing a level 3 warlock is okay and doesn't need to be handled differently.

That said, I do agree with those who have pointed out that the destruction of evil is the moral imperative of good characters -- a paladin can only bend their convictions for the sake of the narrative so far before someone just has to die. It isn't the priority of these players to foster the career of evil characters and there's only so much that can be done for the guy who has failed at subtlety and has failed at assembling a force. There are impediments to playing a successful evil character on the surface to be sure but it can still be done and there is a point where the fault lies in the player.

On a somewhat related note, I've seen a lot of discussion now bemoaning the vulgarity of conflict and I think it needs to be said that the unfortunate reality of a freeform sandbox is that not everyone gets to go out in a blaze of glory and the fate of some is to be cannon fodder. That doesn't mean it's a poor narrative or that the opposition are poor roleplayers. Even the greatest and most thoughtful roleplayer hasn't the time, energy or means to please everyone. Sometimes the moments of most material importance in the game world are simple hostile actions that don't involve the lengthy, psychologically "complex" dialogue upon which I think some members of the community assign too much importance in their evaluation of "good roleplay".

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

Irongron summed it up rather well.


Cheesy PvP tactics, borderline-metagaming RP to 'out' people, it's always been a thing that happens. I don't see any more of it now than I did in the past, and it's in as poor taste now as it was back then(potentially even landing you in DM trouble if severe and reported).

Although, over time I do feel Arelith has grown increasingly more competitive, and that the desire for competition has increased with it, resulting in these more frequent jumps to PvP.
With this, I have also seen powerbuilds becoming more normalized and even encouraged by many players. I've been personally insulted and seen others insulted specifically for having a 'sub-optimal' build for roleplay's sake(not something I ever saw many years back). It's a bit of a separate topic, but I do feel it is related.
More desire for competition and more powerbuilds results in more PvP, and the more normalized a PvP solution becomes the more it happens.

It becomes really easy to forget that there's solutions beyond 'just kill them'.

And I think that's the biggest take away that both sides need to remember.
PvP is the climax to conflict, not the entirely of it.

This is the most insightful post in this thread. I have only kicked around Arelith for going on three years now, and I tend to be more casual then some of you especially when it comes to posting on the forums, so I have no idea how the good old days were. But I came to the conclusion about a year in that Arelith was a PvP Server first, Roleplay second, primarily based on the attitudes of people on discord that if you aren't built to maximize PvP you are doing something wrong. In that sort of environment, it makes sense that at least some people are too fast to jump to pvp. Whether or not the fact that arelith is heavily based on pvp is a bad thing or not is a decision someone else has to make, since its been almost two years since I came to that conclusion and I still play here so clearly its not a force driving me away, but it is the reality for good or ill.


As far as the initial point of the thread, I suppose that depends on what sort of evil you are. A priest of Talos, for an easy example, should be fine despite most people assuming they are evil. Same with bane, shar, ect. Folks on Toril respect and pray to all the gods regardless of alignment, and you can find temples to these gods even in the most lawful good orientated cities. Just to give an easy example, a farmer who lost his wife is likely going to pray to Shar, and while a well played sharran priest is going to use that despair to try and manipulate said farmer, this is normal and accepted.


When it comes to warlocks and necromancers, however, you enter a completely different realm. These things are anthema's to many religions and even classes. Paladins and Druids (even the evil ones!) hate this sort of thing, and even that farmer who lost his wife is going to throw rocks at you if he knows what you are up to. These things really shouldn't be up for debate, as they are inbred in the design of the game and every game (even one like a nwn pw) needs a baseline to work from. Does that mean a level 30 paladin should be hunting warlocks in the sewers and smiting them for killing rats with an outsider summon? Of course not. But if you play these classes, you should expect to be feared and hated. It just comes with the package.

[DeflectiveQuestion]

Not all neutrals go for stomping evil same as the good guys. My current character is neutral and will work with evil people as long as they dont mess with him or his friends, are not causing trouble, and are not stupid evil mass murdering torture happy psychopaths.

I agree there should be another town on the surface that can host or at least tolerate evil. Sencliff is nice and all but not everyone cares for pirate rp. I am more then willing to build such a town in the toolkit however... i have several areas already made that i hope to one day get added to the servers assuming the admins allow it.

Got any good ideas for such let me know.

Your first paragraph strikes true. I recently rolled a beloved character because said character was being civil and polite to evil characters.
The politeness got the character's reputation ruined, and ended with a death warrant from a major faction. All because a nuetral character was being polite to an evil character.

[Sartain]

Irongron summed it up rather well.


Cheesy PvP tactics, borderline-metagaming RP to 'out' people, it's always been a thing that happens. I don't see any more of it now than I did in the past, and it's in as poor taste now as it was back then(potentially even landing you in DM trouble if severe and reported).

Although, over time I do feel Arelith has grown increasingly more competitive, and that the desire for competition has increased with it, resulting in these more frequent jumps to PvP.
With this, I have also seen powerbuilds becoming more normalized and even encouraged by many players. I've been personally insulted and seen others insulted specifically for having a 'sub-optimal' build for roleplay's sake(not something I ever saw many years back). It's a bit of a separate topic, but I do feel it is related.
More desire for competition and more powerbuilds results in more PvP, and the more normalized a PvP solution becomes the more it happens.

It becomes really easy to forget that there's solutions beyond 'just kill them'.

And I think that's the biggest take away that both sides need to remember.
PvP is the climax to conflict, not the entirely of it.

This is the most insightful post in this thread. I have only kicked around Arelith for going on three years now, and I tend to be more casual then some of you especially when it comes to posting on the forums, so I have no idea how the good old days were. But I came to the conclusion about a year in that Arelith was a PvP Server first, Roleplay second, primarily based on the attitudes of people on discord that if you aren't built to maximize PvP you are doing something wrong. In that sort of environment, it makes sense that at least some people are too fast to jump to pvp. Whether or not the fact that arelith is heavily based on pvp is a bad thing or not is a decision someone else has to make, since its been almost two years since I came to that conclusion and I still play here so clearly its not a force driving me away, but it is the reality for good or ill.


As far as the initial point of the thread, I suppose that depends on what sort of evil you are. A priest of Talos, for an easy example, should be fine despite most people assuming they are evil. Same with bane, shar, ect. Folks on Toril respect and pray to all the gods regardless of alignment, and you can find temples to these gods even in the most lawful good orientated cities. Just to give an easy example, a farmer who lost his wife is likely going to pray to Shar, and while a well played sharran priest is going to use that despair to try and manipulate said farmer, this is normal and accepted.


When it comes to warlocks and necromancers, however, you enter a completely different realm. These things are anthema's to many religions and even classes. Paladins and Druids (even the evil ones!) hate this sort of thing, and even that farmer who lost his wife is going to throw rocks at you if he knows what you are up to. These things really shouldn't be up for debate, as they are inbred in the design of the game and every game (even one like a nwn pw) needs a baseline to work from. Does that mean a level 30 paladin should be hunting warlocks in the sewers and smiting them for killing rats with an outsider summon? Of course not. But if you play these classes, you should expect to be feared and hated. It just comes with the package.

I'm just going to go ahead and say that ALL of this was also typical issues on persistent world back in Ye Olden Days, when NWN was new.

[Nobs]

Am i the only one having fun on his evil and CN toons?

[Sartain]

Am i the only one having fun on his evil and CN toons?

I know for a fact that a few of the people that I joined with recently very quickly abandoned their evil characters because they felt that the community in general was rabidly and violently meta-gaming any slight hint of evil-ness.
But I'm sure somebody is having fun

[Yma23]

I have a question for the people posting onto this - which I think will sort of focus things a lilttle bit.

Now let's put aside the issue of 'good' and 'evil' and everything else for a while. Just shove that aside for one moment. ]

The question is this:


What, in your opinion, makes a characters roleplay/existant untenable, such as that they are no longer worth playing?

Is it heavy PvP?
A reputation utterly ruined?
Inability to buy things from ANY settlment?
Inability to own property?

One of these things? Some of these things? All of these things?

[The Rambling Midget]

What, in your opinion, makes a characters roleplay/existant untenable, such as that they are no longer worth playing?

For me, it's when I'm no longer enjoying the core concept of the character, regardless of whether it's "winning" or "losing". Usually, that happens when I didn't plan it well enough to be long lasting, or I've played it so long that I've explored as much of the character as I care to. If it's just other people being meanie poo heads, I can go somewhere more enlightened.

[Durvayas]

1.Heavy PvP?
A low level character that is going to get killed on a regular basis cannot be played, because of the death debuffs.

2. Ruined reputation?
Usually means 1 will be a thing, but it also means 3 and 4.

3. Inability to buy things from any settlement?
Inability to buy from any settlement that isn't Andunor, because entering said settlements leads to... you guessed it, PvP and more death debuffs.

4.Inability to own property?
This ties into 2 and 3. If you can't linger surface towns without getting killed, you can't expect to hold property in one.

Since all of the surface settlement governments seem to be run by 'good' PCs that loosely work together to crush evil, and many good PCs travel between various towns... if you are exiled from one town, you very often become effectively exiled from all of them, and your character is faced with the choices of...

Skajardl (because of its distance)
Sencliff (if you want to become a pirate)
Andunor (which if you aren't already an outcast isn't a good choice because you'll struggle to thrive there without the hub portal)

A character is untenable when these checkboxes are all getting checked, and honestly, it gets unfun well before all of them are, and its hard to be enthused when you feel discouraged, because its almost impossible to come back from Pariah status on the surface.

The vast majority of people are going to roll, shelf, or delete once they reach this point, and usually do.

When Wharftown was a thing, it was run a bit like a bandit camp, but it was somewhere people could GO to continue playing their now villified PC, somewhat decently surrounded by PvP skilled other baddies that had banded together so that a random paladin patrol wouldn't be able to curbstomp them. That was wharftown's role in a nutshell.

[RedGiant]

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=23029
Hrm...

But all joking aside, to the extent that there is some truth to the OP, I do think there are larger trends which manifest due to group dynamics on the server...especially over the long term.

A long time ago, there was a zenith of team evil and I was a part of a poorly-kept-secret faction that seemingly owned half the properties on the server (easier to do back then) and ran half the governments. Right now the dynamic may be different, but this is entirely player driven.

If we look at the larger trends, yes, Whartown (which, lets be honest, was mostly Team Banite over and over again) was lost, but so was Benwick (team paladin). I would also add, that both of these were lost due to large player plots enabled by the staff. Yet, both of these were, in a sense, replaced...for we have the Church of Bane and the Radiant Heart.

Moreover, the House of the Triad was replaced by the Fellowship of the Red Knight in Cordor and King Edward married the Banite Queen (if I remembered rightly). We also have Sibayad, Sencliff, the Halfbreed Camp, and Skal, none of which innately have anything about them that forces them to 'team good'. There is also a number of coterminous, clearly evil areas in, through, and touching some of the server's settlements.

In short, I don't think we have a design problem.

We do have players who are minimalists on the PvP rules and don't care a whit about furthering your story. We also have players who place mechanics over cogent story telling. I think these dynamics are more the root of the problem that you describe. This is a frustrating situation, because, as long as they obey the rules, the worst that can be said here is that it is a case of 'bad form'.

As some others have alluded, I think the solution here is social. Surround yourself with like-minded individuals, start a movement, etc. Who knows, if it grows, you like other players in the past might have an effect on the game-world!

[Face]

I find these threads pretty mad. As someone who exclusively plays evil surface characters, [one of which is in the leadership of a 'good settlement', almost every other space in that leadership occupied by some form of Neutral character], I have never found this at all.

I think what happens here is that people want to play a very specific kind of evil. The kind of evil that manifests in all-encompassing cruelty towards anyone and everything or any sort of obvious remorseless evil is likely to be stamped down on hard by Surfacers. That's not entirely without context, though. Remember this is a shared story with a shared history. If there's years of slaves or warlocks or whoever seeming good and then doing horrible things, then it's likely a universally approved approach will be to stomp on evil wherever possible.

As I keep saying in these threads, though, there are many kinds of evil. Evil exists aplenty in the real world, from mundane bureaucratic evil to charismatic warm-voiced evil to misguided, well-intentioned evil to all manner of other, horrendous kinds of evil. There's no reason why that shouldn't exist in fantasy. Again, as I've said elsewhere: Total psychopathic moral depravity should be incredibly rare, probably more rare even than total goodness. Evil characters can be friendly, kind, loving, warm, regretful, polite, fearful, anxious. They don't all need to be power-crazed monsters who take every opportunity to attack and insult everyone around them. They don't even need to be unpleasant to talk to. And those that are unpleasant to talk to and are clearly power-crazed monsters or demon-summoners are likely to be stomped on.

If you don't swing your weapon about, summon demons in sight of everyone or insult people's beliefs/morals constantly, you'll probably be fine, in my experience.

Still, I agree that PVP and powerbuilding for the purposes of PVP have become so prevalent as to be out of control. I also agree there needs to be a non-sencliff evil/neutral settlement.

[Basementfellow]

I think what happens here is that people want to play a very specific kind of evil. The kind of evil that manifests in all-encompassing cruelty towards anyone and everything or any sort of obvious remorseless evil is likely to be stamped down on hard by Surfacers. That's not entirely without context, though. Remember this is a shared story with a shared history. If there's years of slaves or warlocks or whoever seeming good and then doing horrible things, then it's likely a universally approved approach will be to stomp on evil wherever possible.

As I keep saying in these threads, though, there are many kinds of evil. Evil exists aplenty in the real world, from mundane bureaucratic evil to charismatic warm-voiced evil to misguided, well-intentioned evil to all manner of other, horrendous kinds of evil. There's no reason why that shouldn't exist in fantasy. Again, as I've said elsewhere: Total psychopathic moral depravity should be incredibly rare, probably more rare even than total goodness. Evil characters can be friendly, kind, loving, warm, regretful, polite, fearful, anxious. They don't all need to be power-crazed monsters who take every opportunity to attack and insult everyone around them. They don't even need to be unpleasant to talk to. And those that are unpleasant to talk to and are clearly power-crazed monsters or demon-summoners are likely to be stomped on.

If you don't swing your weapon about, summon demons in sight of everyone or insult people's beliefs/morals constantly, you'll probably be fine, in my experience.

Nobody in this thread ever said anything about this, and I'm deeply confused as to why so many people are making this assumption. I'd like to believe we all know that a compelling personality should come first -- flaws, virtues, subtlety, etc -- nobody's complaining about their poorly portrayed caricatures being stomped. As I outlined in my earlier post, even these more nuanced villains are subjected to the kind of treatment one might expect a cartoon villain to receive.

[Face]

Nobody in this thread ever said anything about this, and I'm deeply confused as to why so many people are making this assumption. I'd like to believe we all know that a compelling personality should come first -- flaws, virtues, subtlety, etc -- nobody's complaining about their poorly portrayed caricatures being stomped. As I outlined in my earlier post, even these more nuanced villains are subjected to the kind of treatment one might expect a cartoon villain to receive.

To be fair, this is also true. I've seen that as soon as people are outed as villains their names are rushed through the grapevine of Surface settlements and they are stomped off the surface. I just really don't like the idea that people are being turned off the idea of playing Evil on the surface by these threads. It might be more difficult than ever to play a 'villain', which is a storyline role, but Evil can still find its way. Like Good, it just needs to work within the system. Perhaps that's unfortunate.

[Disciprine Come From Within]

The issue goes back to the "crushing an ember before it turns into a fire" issue. Outing evil isn't directly the issue per say, it's more the proportional ridiculousness that can sometimes happen. You find a level 10 warlock and instead of sending your regular up and comers to handle the villain, you get the level 30s involved instead. Proportional conflict is the key to a better enjoyment. If the "enemy" is obviously going to be curb stomped, is it so bad to allow fleeing or some some of wound licking rather than just go for the kill? Not that overwhelming force in conflict can't be fun, but when it becomes the norm, or expected as the norm, then things get more heated, competitive and less enjoyable for everyone as a whole. At least that's how I see it.

[Yma23]

The reason why I ask this question, is I feel it's kinda central to the follow up of the statement this topic is about: 'How do we fix this?'

If the issue is mostly PvP then really the 'fixing' lies with a mixture of Players, and dms. Players to work on giving other players a little bit more leeway, Dms to encourage such leeway, investigate further certain aspects of rp, and so forth.

If it's simply about 'reputation' then I'm not sure there's anything that can be done To fix things.

If the situation is about Settlements, inability to entirely mix with the settlement system – then we need to consider whether adding another Actual Settlement of some sort is an issue.

If the issue is more about property – then what we need is probably more quarters/shops on neutral ground, so that those who don't fall in line with the 'status quo' have somewhere to go.

And note in my question I've not touched on good/evil. Because I honestly don't think it's quite about that. I think it's less about 'evil having nowhere to go' and more about 'people who do not fit a certain mould having no where to go.'

At the moment the pendulum is against Evil. Which is one thing. But it could swing the other way. Imagine if you will playing a Paladin who was militant and went out killing Warlocks,.but the feeling of all other Paladins was that 'killing is bad 'mkay?' Or all the other settlements going 'What? That paladin attacked the Banites? But the Banites are awsome and really powerful! Bad Paladin! Exile him!'

You get exactly the same problem- and honestly I've -been- that Paladin a few times. So it's a pendulum that can change and swing.

It's not entirely about Good and Evil, it's about ensuring that characters who go 'against the grain', who drive conflict, have a place to go.

Whether this is the Paladin who believes in pro-active smiting.
Or the Warlock who doesn't want to go into the Underdark.
Or neutral thief, who just wants to pick a few pockets.

Yes, the problem right now is with Evil, but I think in the larger scale we should look at the problem from other angles.

In my opinion it is point 3 and 4 that worry me. Especially point 4. A quarter and maybe a shop to be able to access is very useful for any character I have. I can put up with an amount of pvp. Reputation is something I can work around and honestly outside of the hands of anyone but myself any how, but if I loose access to almost all basic mechanical neccesities, then that is annoying.

So to look at it another way:
A while ago Irongron added the Treadstone locks, and some other neutral places in the underdark. This is because it could be worryingly easy to be exiled/hated by both Devils Table and Sharps. And that left only the Wheel with neutral property to own. This was a good decision.

Right now, if you are a Human on the surface, you have a choice between Cordor and Guldorand as a place to live. If you are exiled/unwelcome from both – you are effectively in the same position.

Ergo I put that it might be nice to have further housing somewhere for such people.

[Irongron]

It is tempting to make the Cloven Hoof a player run tavern akin to the Nomad...

[CosmicOrderV]

Think I heard of some folks already putting in the RP to make that happen, too.

[Ebonstar]

It is tempting to make the Cloven Hoof a player run tavern akin to the Nomad...

there is a large neutral place evil can go on the surface but most ignore it or just forget its already in place. It would need a small revamp to bring it current with shops and quarters and such

[Sea Shanties]

Housing on neutral ground isn't the only answer. Anyone with more than one character is used to having no housing. It also doesn't matter if your neutral character has a bed and a chest if there's nobody out there to play with. You need hang out spots more than anything. I really don't see why Sencliff can't be seen as an evil-ish area that happens to be run by pirates myself, maybe with a few tweaks and additions, but I guess that's a matter of taste.

I think one thing evil surfacers need more than anything is a way to level up with writs where they can use their full range of powers without risk of being busted. The appeal of playing in the underdark is being a warlock or necromancer who can summon their undead or devils/demons with abandon. They can work their way to the comfort zone without being inevitably seen by some goody-good out doing their writs in the same spot. Or even if you're just melee, you have that writ-doing time to meet others with a similar world view. On the surface you have to be very guarded which has its merits but gets old very fast.

Maybe if there was an evil-only chain of writs on Sencliff that goody types couldn't access, or wouldn't do because they're evil jobs, and didn't give you the pirate tattoo (make that a separate thing) the place would have a lot more evil activity. I've always thought it a missed opportunity you can technically start there but can't actually base yourself there until later.

[The Kriv]

*caution, attitude.*

In the similar discussion thread regarding Monster-Characters living in settlements, etc... I think it applies very much to Warlocks and evil classes with dark, unnatural, demonic summons.

Keep in mind that even though you don't 'SEE' commoners around the settlements like Cordor, Guldorand, etc... but we as players should assume they are there. Look at the Cordor Farmlands, for example. There are no NPC's out there ACTUALLY tilling those fields.. it's assumed that there are more farmers out there doing their farm-thing. There are commoners all over the settlement areas. There is a caravan system that shuttles Commoners between settlements that we don't see.

To be so bold as to run around with your greater mummies in tow, or your Pit Fiend... or your undead.. and expect there to be no negative reaction to this is immersion breaking.

Being evil isn't a bit deal. Living alongside evil characters isn't a big deal. But summoning the denizens of the 9 hells and binding them to your will is IC unlawful (basic common sense law) pretty much everywhere that isn't specifically a location for the Evil-Club. These classes are SUPPOSED to be difficult. You are EXPECTED to hide these abilities. This is not WoW where you just run around with your warlock summon everywhere you go, and the barkeeps ignore you when you stop in for a pint. This is a living, breathing persistent world.


-If my Chaotic-Good ranger comes across a warlock in the forest who has summoned demons, and I choose to confront you about it, there's pretty much only 2 ways it can go. You unsummon your demon and depart peacefully, or we fight. The fun part is the explaining part that your character gets to try to convince my character it's okay... or that you're sorry, or that you feign ignorance, etc..

For my Ranger character to react: "oh.. hey, yeah go on with your Pit Feind, I see you have it under control so just keep it out of the flower beds" -that is immersion breaking. (this is, of course, an exaggeration but you get the point) -there is grey area, but it is very shallow.

instead of black and white, it's more like... really really really dark grey, and bright tan.


And if you want to grouse about the dificulty of leveling without your demonic pets... roll up a dedicated archer and see how difficult solo - leveling is now, and you'll grow a finer appreciation for the ease of your chosen evility. (new word!)

[Basementfellow]

Being evil isn't a bit deal. Living alongside evil characters isn't a big deal. But summoning the denizens of the 9 hells and binding them to your will is IC unlawful (basic common sense law) pretty much everywhere that isn't specifically a location for the Evil-Club. These classes are SUPPOSED to be difficult. You are EXPECTED to hide these abilities. This is not WoW where you just run around with your warlock summon everywhere you go, and the barkeeps ignore you when you stop in for a pint. This is a living, breathing persistent world.

I'd like to reiterate that nobody in this thread indicated that they believed anything to the contrary of this. This prevailing assumption that what people are complaining about is Good characters not tolerating Evil actions is so very confusing to me. This isn't what the thread is about, as so many other posts have already outlined.