Evil character tolerance?

[dergon darkhelm]

As did I. What I see lacking, from my experience, are DMs giving characters personal attention related to their background, current goals, faith, race, etc. Instead, we appear to have DMs running campaigns.

This is simly a "most bang for your buck" decision making process. There simply aren't enough DMs with enough hours in a day to give the majority of players of personal attention.

So DMs run events. This gets 5-6-7-8 PCs all able to enjoy the fun at one time.

Many DMs are able to pick one or two players, concentrate on their PC's individual stories, and give 1-1 action to help move their story arc forward.

However, even if every DM in ALFA did that, we'd still fall well short of providing individual attention to every player. The numbers just don't add up.

It's what has me considering becoming a DM, though I'd be terribly dependant on others..

Do it.

I don't build. I don't script. I don't know FR canon really well. I'm more comfortable with hex paper than I am a laptop. But I am a testement to the the fact that ANYONE can develope the requisite minimal skill with the DM client and make a game.

Even you suck at DMing like I do, players are like starving, DMless refugees. They're happy for all of it!

[Dorn]

But I am a testement to the the fact that ANYONE can develope the requisite minimal skill with the DM client and make a game.

He is.

Even you suck at DMing like I do

He lies.

[NESchampion]

Stomping on PCs that are "seven, eight ... more?" levels below you isn't a positive way to bring in that tension. And yes, usually just 3 levels is enough.

To an extent I agree and to an extent I disagree. While I agree that it might feel unfair to fight a higher level character, levels are meta information and shouldn't be influencing our characters decisions. The same holds true with regards to NPC vs. PC; it's a meta distinction. What should be driving IC interactions and conflict is IC actions and IC information. This means justification for violence will vary; what brings Olaf to action and what brings Alyra to action, for example, is probably more different than people would think. I do not doubt for a second that if my character had been lighting fires around Xujja's band of Aurilites even in friendly areas there would've been IC repercussions and there should have been, level differences be damned. Immersion is important in creating meaningful conflict and interaction.

[Rotku]

If only everyone was able to make that step, NES.

[t-ice]

Stomping on PCs that are "seven, eight ... more?" levels below you isn't a positive way to bring in that tension. And yes, usually just 3 levels is enough.

While I agree that it might feel unfair to fight a higher level character, levels are meta information and shouldn't be influencing our characters decisions.

But it should influence the positions we put the characters into. After all often it needs meta info exchange via tells just so that two PCs can meet and play together. And the real reason why opposite alignments even are together and cause conflict is because there's one DM on with whom they both want to game. Just like a DM won't wantonly spawn giants on lvl2s passing an area where giants might inhabit, two players can nudge the story towards "well, let's not physically run into each other but let the conflict plot evolve via 3rd parties". For example via IG tells.

On the other hand, if those lvl2s go out to seek to loot the giants home cave, then yeah the DM should have giants stomp on them. Just like what should happen to the lowbie paladin charging that high-level necromancer no matter what. (Note that the high level player has more responsibility to give the low level an exit - with power comes responsibility. Just like DM has responsibility towards the players to generally keep the Tarrasque asleep.) The story should be actively nudged towards avoiding out-of-level encounters, by players and DMs both. But it shouldn't be idiot-proof shoving.

[Blindhamsterman]

Just like a DM won't wantonly spawn giants on lvl2s passing an area where giants might inhabit

you play in a different ALFA to me

my favourite DMs are the ones that have their sessions make use of canon enemies in the areas they choose (such as giants in the mountains or kua toa/illithids etc in some of the darker places below).

Its doing that sort of thing - and making it so that players sometimes HAVE to run away - that makes ALFA so immersive.

[kid]

have to run away. yes.
dead on the spot. no.

I think that was Ice's point.

same as the interaction with ebil/good big level diff,
have interaction, not insta-death.

but when a low level is being stupid *shrugs* such is life. it will die.

[t-ice]

have to run away. yes.
dead on the spot. no.

+1

[Blindhamsterman]

but when a low level is being stupid *shrugs* such is life. it will die

+1



Basically, if a low level goes to places that are clearly supposed to be super dangerous... they've every right to die, or at the very least, come close to it.

Low levels going into the cloud peaks on BG or into the frost hills on TSM SHOULD meet giants and SHOULD either run or die.

Low levels hunting higher level PCs should also die.

Arguably high level PCs shouldn't go after low level PCs from an IC perspective because quite simply.... that low level PC should be below their notice.

Theres a clause concerning level 10 and above PCs and the fact they're supposed to be involved in major plots on their home server, they should be well known by a number of NPCs due to their exploits...

The opposite should often be true of lower level PCs (probably 5 or below) whom might be known by a select few NPCs outside of whatever faction they're in, but their exploits usually aren't rumoured about an entire region. If they ARE rumoured about the entire region because that's what they wanted... fine, but then the high level opposed alignment or opposed faction has every IC reason and right to go take them out if it's appropriate for them to do so.

[kid]

I am so proud.
fianly for once I managed to do what i allways dreamed.
take both praties in an argument and have them both agree with me.



EDIT: on a much less importent note I read what BHM wrote.
And yus. I is in agreement.

Think the main point is that the higher levels, good or bad,
should be held to an even higher standard of RP reasons
as they do have the power to gank the lowbies
and thus must make absolutly sure thier reasoning is intact ICly.
God knows we've seen our share of META ganking in defferent degrees of absurdity.

[danielmn]

I've seen plenty of evil tolerated. From an early on Banite Group, to an Aurilite group up to no good, evilish followers of Beshaba and Talona...Nepharious Thayans tolerated. Followers of Mask that were never found out. Thing is, most of these PC's player LE,NE....and a few maybe even played CE. None of them played Stupid Evil.

I think there is one occurance in our rendition of NWN2 ALFA that had a paladin (of Torm) go after a cleric (of Bane) simply because of whom they worshipped. The encounter ended badly (though not in death) for the paladin. I believe level had something to do with that, but level wasn't a factor in the approach and encounter as far as I am aware. There are PC's that should rightly have been hung, that were allowed to continue on because of IC events. There are PC's whose actions led to their demise out of circumstance (leaving witnesses alive, having acts become public knowledge, causing known trouble in certain areas where PC's were hiding from the law ect). I would expect less these days of the latter, as we have three servers in play, ergo two other places to flee to if things get hot. I've actually often wondered if TOO much leeway has been given to evil PC's at times.

If your aim is... "I want to play evil to get individualized attention from a DM toward my own exploits.." you may have to wait a little while on that, as mentioned in previous posts. It can happen...but a little patience is required. The DM's try to cater to the max number of players that they can, to try to ensure everyone gets their fair shake of dm time...and it is rare the goodly or neutral aligned PC's get one on one DMage themselves with things THEY might want to do or get accomplished...DMing is usually done in the group format. Want to play an evil loner...be prepared to be alone a lot. As stated previously, there is simply not enough DM's to do one on one dming very often.

[Castano]

This whole thread is premised on an accusation that ALFA does not allow evil groups to play here. I am not sure why this thread was even started - someone please enlighten me. Was someone denied DM time? A PC died? what?

Facts:
MS DM'd an entire pirate faction on skaug for 6+ months. They were not goodies.
There have been 2 hardcore evil factions (Auril and Thay) around since I was HDM. Both got tons of DM action - just look around at all the temples to Auril on all 3 servers. Team Bane has been around in one form or another for ages and just participated in a huge server wide plot on BG. A new evil faction is in the works on MS too.

[dirsa]

*looks around* i don't know what you all are talking about... there is no evil in alfa...

[darugith]

To all that dared reply I thank you. It surely tells the tale, mostly from experiences others have had, and pretty much outlines the way one almost has to play to have a chance. I think the comments about DM play time for special needs players are well noted as well. I will consider carefully how to create a new character going forward.

We have many many good players in our "club" and I am still happy to be a part of this. See you all in the wilds.

Dar

[Sidhe]

--Bogs fully supports 'the evil' (tm)--

I’ve read most of the posts here, but skimmed over some so if this has been raised before please ignore.

I see something that is severely lacking in a lot of the viewpoints here. That thing is called Law Enforcement. In the majority of the areas we play in (irrespective of law v chaos alignment issues) there is law enforcement. It is the job of law enforcement, not factions/churches/organisations, to punish wrong doers or criminals. Just because your faction has sanctioned you/it is right for you to hunt an evil/good doer that does not mean the state has sanctioned your actions (if it has, bully for you, go for it )

Killing outside of self-defence is frowned upon. "But he waz ebulz/goodz" is not an excuse and at the very least I would expect/enforce jail time while an in-depth investigation occurred. If the PC had no convincing argument to support their actions, regardless of good/evil, they would suffer the consequences, and, even if they did to some extent why did they go vigilante?

A bias seems prevalent that its "ok Joe" for good guys to hunt evil, but "expect to feel the wrath" if the reverse is looked at. Actions = Consequences, good guys can’t circumvent the state and its laws (as lose as they might be) to serve their own goals/factions. This is where perhaps a breakdown is happening; evil players know what they are doing is the bad and they could get killed, good players expect "good" to offer carte blanch for their actions against the former and perhaps are getting away with it to some extent? It doesn’t work like that in civilized states.

*detects evil in marketplace and pulls his great sword in preparation for 'justice rampage'*