Evil/Good Balance

[Delia]

What I understood that was said here as well was:"Do not initiate combat immediately on sight" which sounds rather great to me atleast. I think it should be something that we all should strive for as opposed to being in hurry to type "gore/(insert your favourite first attack here)foe" first.

[ganandorf]

I guess the general opinion is that no one wants to make any major changes. Those that want to change, can change their own characters, and that's all that will happen.

[rafael]

Natural suggestion: when you spot the other side, either flee, regroup somewhere and prepare for an attack. If they give chase or come back it's on. Don't you think?

I mean there are a hundred torches to light, people to settle into rows, miracles to cast, and orders to be given and decisions to be made. Of course, if there's previous action taken by one side that'll probably dictate the reaction. But we aren't hunting each other 24/7, right?

(Except when we are...?)

Just don't expect unreasonable things and I think it ought to be fine: if there's been attacks (YES, npc's count) or mischief in civilized areas, however remote, I think it's natural to expect people will come in with blades swinging. I'm not sure if this pretty much forces evils who don't want pk 24/7 to go for the same targets to train that the "good" guys use (and those already mentioned), but well competing for resources ain't that bad, right? Or is it really that hard for evils? (Or hard enough.)

Also I'm not exactly sure that people who go to the tundra are always there to go after evils. At least I've not seen people describe their reasons as such in game. (Though I can imagine it might feel like that from the other side.. I mean's it's our tundra isn't it?)

[lanyara]

Also I'm not exactly sure that people who go to the tundra are always there to go after evils.

At the very least the Crusaders have a solid IC reason to patrol, as they seek out evil. And the tundra is extremely close to a good area.

I mean, if the tundra is a place for a potential horde of undeads to march south, then I don't think any really good character could not care about this, as the IC implications of such an event (if successful) be very dramatic.

[rafael]

Also I'm not exactly sure that people who go to the tundra are always there to go after evils.

At the very least the Crusaders have a solid IC reason to patrol, as they seek out evil. And the tundra is extremely close to a good area.

I mean, if the tundra is a place for a potential horde of undeads to march south, then I don't think any really good character could not care about this, as the IC implications of such an event (if successful) be very dramatic.

I ought to have been clearer: out there to look for particular evil PC's or even _any_. And most of the times they tend to go there to do something else. Some of it does put them in conflict with the evils, but not all. And as you said, there's crusaders. And,yes, it can be very dramatic: one of the first big moments with my char involved running into a besieged Elvandar over-run with undead. My character took refuge in the cathedral, thankfully the doors held and there were people to help this very young man to escape the city. One of the first few moments that showed me geas' potential.

[Arwenth]

One of the things that I think we could do with helping to make things more balanced with RP is when new characters do something wrong we could change the way we attempt to divert them from doing things that would send them down the path of being evil. Instead of coming out of the gate and being overly forceful with them we could try talking to them and being more suggestive and explaining why things are bad and what they lead to.

One reason I say this is because Arwenth was already in the Crusade before anyone ever explained that you'd know someone was a cannibal cause their skin would tint green, and I've seen newbies who get jumpy at the sight of an elf with dark skin cause they don't know that darkelves are supposed to be paler than other elves not darker. The current method works something like this: Newbie does something bad, Everyone finds out, Newbie is informed about it being evil and the Crusade burning evil-doers and then Newbie never does anything bad ever again cause they don't wanna die.

I think we should be a little more lenient than that the first time (couple of times?) cause new characters start the game mid-way their teens, I don't know about anyone else but when I was 16 I did things cause I wasn't supposed to not cause I had any other motive but because I was told by all the adults don't do it. I also agree with the suggestion that we should start putting more emphasis on converting others to see our side than just killing them out of the gate.

One thing I think could be done is capturing those you oppose and preaching to them. I'm not sure about how this would work given the code of the favour system, perhaps you don't actually make them sit down? So it's more an RP gesture than a coded one. One thing I'd like to see happen and Arwenth has actually mentioned it in character is building a jail. Of course OOCly it'd be kinda flimsy and the point would be to escape from it but it'd be better than the constant circle of :See enemy; charge; kill enemy/insta-burn.

[caelia]

In light of recent events I think we can all stop pretending that this discussion has a serious premise.

[ganandorf]

I agree. I'd delete this topic if i could.

[lanyara]

I have been thinking a bit about capture the flag setups. I am not sure if there are more, but Sathonys seems to have at the very least two "flagposts" (insect portal and undead portal).

Both of these have an IC background, and both have an impact on the game flow.

Both are a danger to society (at least to the more or less good areas) - in other words:

Truly good characters can not "ignore" them at all as ignoring them would mean that other good beings would be in danger.

In my opinion capture the flag scenarios have advantages, and disadvantages.

One advantage is that it provides more reason for IC conflicts, while also giving an IC background and connecting to the game world history (see Eal-Deliah, which I think is the best area in game even if it is mostly an area for good characters. Eal-Deliah provides a huge IC reason for several things.).

To name a (possible) disadvantage of capture the flag areas: such areas put constraints on what many playercharacters can actually do, without becoming inconsistent.

Please keep that constraint in mind as I continue with this lengthy note.

From Elvandar's point of view, especially the nearby undead portal must be a huge threat. If undeads can come out, more or less led or aided by Sathonys clerics or other evil people, then it really is not possible to ignore such a threat for a good character anymore. It most definitely is not for Taniel clerics either, but I would rather focus on areas than guilds for now.

Elvandar also has the Eal-Deliah background, so that adds in one more constraint on what can be possible from a good character's point of view. (You can skim through some logs for this background, but it most definitely is there. I guess most parts of the Eal-Deliah background could actually be considered as general knowledge at least for the elvish population in Elvandar, and at the very least the queen and her protectors. They can't ignore the background of Eal-Deliah for instance, which puts a constraint on them of course.)

To a lesser extent - from Elvandar's point of view at least - the insect portal is also a problem. Sure, the insects more or less focus on giving Arborea a hard time, and Elvandar could ultimately not care much about that human town.

But - roaming insects influence many aspects. They certainly kill guards, and hinder commerce between areas. They also seem to help Sathonys' cause, and elves definitely used to fight together with Arborea at one point in history, so it would be very hard for the elvish society as a whole to remain completely "neutral" here altogether. Or in other words, they can't really be legitimately "neutral" in the sense of to "not care about it". It makes a lot more sense to aid fighting against the evil plague rather than being neutral and hoping that the evilness just goes away silently, disappearing just like so.

I am saying that this reason is a lesser extent, because I could easily see elves who don't like humans, especially extremely arrogant elves. But, even then, if forced to pick a side, I think we can rightly assume that elves will remain on the good side entirely (and only darkelves being on the "other" side, the evil side). This I think is another constraint, because the society structure will keep them most definitely on the good side (or on the neutral side temporarily), but never the evil side.

Additionally, at least one Sathonys concept, if taken to the extreme, basically means that everyone is an enemy (or slave) to Sathonys, ultimately.

Why not, if the endgame would be to turn everyone into undead slaves anyway.

Perhaps I am wrong here, and there may be more concepts for Sathonys, but the turn-everyone-into-undeads concept seems to have a very, very big influence among all the players of Sathonys clerics, and further limits what choices may be possible. It also depends on the players of evil characters of course, as everyone more or less plays differently. But even then, I think there exists a "common theme pattern" which will be repeated a lot again and again, even if different players play in a certain setting/theme.

I can not find one of the notes anymore, but there were two quite interesting notes here on the forum. One was the older one by @Golub, which I think in essence still has some valid points - viewtopic.php?f=7&t=323&p=2775#p2775

The other one I can not find was a relationship between Sathonys, Sathonys clerics, and tshaharks. If I remember correctly, the IC reason was that Sathonys hates tshaharks. I do not know whether this was pushed forward by wizards/admin, or player regulated. Because if players pushed forward with that concept, then I could easily see another IC reason to handle such things.

If anyone wonders, I'd reason that yes, tshaharks were created to combat insects, but they now EXIST, and you can't easily kill them all, so why not make them sway, switch sides, corrupt them and so forth. It would seem to aid Sathonys agenda partially at least. Also it seems as if quite some time has passed, enough time to think about applying another strategy.
With that being said, I have no idea at all if there were more limits imposed against this. I mean, if Sathonys himself somehow sent a message or informed his clerics that this is how he thinks about it, then I can see that this is a restriction which can not be overcome at all. It would not be possible to be a "good" cleric, and ignore the deity's wish or agenda. But, if it was player driven, then I would easily see ways to workaround such restrictions.

Anyway, this is no stab at all against players of Sathos. I just would like to keep a focus on constraints - both self-constraints (player imposed), and those put onto characters with IC background and the code environment.

So, I was wondering whether Sathonys followers (or Lilith followers) could be treated slightly differently than clerics, and I also wondered a bit about the paranoia or the extreme IC distrust about spies. I don't think there was a big problem with spies back in the days of Glorfindel - perhaps I am wrong, I just can't remember OOCly.

The Lilith followers as such are not so much a problem right now, in my opinion, because they simply don't have an active clergy, and don't really seem to have a capture the flag area putting IC pressure constantly. (Ok, they have Ironhold, and the old livequest, but other than that they don't seem to put as much pressure into the game world right now compared to Sathonys)

But now, if you think about it, at least for Sathonys followers and good characters ... then there is no real IC reason for a paranoid good character to lower guard if someone follows such a deity. The gods are extremely setup against each other. I mean, can you really ignore an evil character if he could act as spy or his actions would cause an army of undeads march towards Elvandar eventually? You can't allow too much leeway here.

I think there was some other note, about wizards who might want to prefer that individual evil players be treated individually (I could be wrong here, can't seem to find that note now).

Which is fine, and I thought especially for followers of evil deities this might be possible.

But I am no longer really sure that this is possible. There just seem to be too many constraints, and an extreme polarization.

Whether this is good or bad depends on the point of view.

My personal preference would be to depolarize slightly, and perhaps even think about the general capture the flag areas more. From an IC point of view, for a good character, it makes perfect sense to stand strong, and actively work to diminish all signs of evil. Because that is a lot better than to do nothing, and eventually have an army of undeads march right into Elvandar.

I am not sure if this was just rambling or somewhat coherent thoughts. But at any rate, I wrote a bit much lately here, so I'll take an out-time from writing stuff here.

On the other side I should have time again soon to actually play, probably starting this weekend.

[Kirill]

Sathonys Clerics don't want to turn everyone into undead, we want everyone to be a slave to Sathonys because hes the one true god. Much like any other clerical guild wants. Sathonys doesn't care about undead, they just stand as a corruption or an abomination or a symbol of death/chaos and so he is pleased when we create them.

And perhaps the tower of pain works like capture the flag, but i don't think the insect portal does.

I also think all gods hate tshaharks. They are a creation of mages which isn't a divine work. The fact they were created to kill insects just means Sathonys has a reason to hate them more.

In short though, Sathonys wants death and slavehood. Accept those who wish to give their life to him, and kill the rest.

Praise the Crowned Skull,
Kirill

[matusalem]

I remember Matusalem and Naga having a conversation about the creation of Tshaharks, and I believe Naga described it best in his own way. Evren hates the fact that Tshaharks were created... but doesn't necessarily hate each individual Tshahark, since they are after all living beings. I reckon this can also be said of certain other deities as well.

[Delia]

I also think all gods hate tshaharks. They are a creation of mages which isn't a divine work. The fact they were created to kill insects just means Sathonys has a reason to hate them more.

I think this is more or less true. While the gods do not necessarily !*HATE*! the tshahark race(they do allow them as clerics), the lizards have quite few handicaps when it comes to gods/anything mystical.

[lanyara]

Poor tshaharks, hated by everyone

[Cuetlachtli]

Note: These are all replies to posts in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1373&p=15427#p15427
but are more on topic here I think.

Okay a few things I want to chime in on here:

I remember getting a letter about two characters being banned from ever joining the scribes because they were having a conversation one of them mentioned a book written about Sathonys alleviating suffering or something.

You can’t be an evil alchemist or an evil scribe either. All my examples lean to the point I’m making that it’s not just the Crusade deterring people from becoming evil it’s a lot bigger than that.

This is definitely related to external influences of the Crusade and Company from my character's point of view. It's not that either guild technically has a problem with the alignment of the person, it's more likely it's that they are not staffed with warriors or in very fortified areas (they are weak). If a "troublemaker" was trying to hide in their guildspace, it would bring heat on them and all of there expensive equipment/books etc.
My character wouldn't be very happy about someone hunting an outlaw or enemy of theirs in my guild, breaking down the door, possibly damaging equipment, etc.
The solution to this problem would be having separate or independent branches available (which should absolutely be the case though probably not very justified) (and is the separate issue of guild distribution in general).

My advice to the neutral slightly evils don't go around backstabbing things or being really open about what you do. Secrets are key. Do you think successful criminals go around telling everyone how successful they are? No they shut up keep to themselves and put on an act. If that means tricking some Crusader tshaharks and humans and acting not like a complete asshole to them, than thats what it means.

The problem with slightly-evils is complex. Yes, they shouldn't go around and backstab everything, that's obvious. A lot of the responsibility falls on them to be cunning and under the radar.

Exactly. This is key.
The only issues are that the neutral-evil char doesn't get much recognition for their actions in the MUD world if they are successful. It is certainly gratifying to keep secrets, but secrets are somewhat less fun if not shared, and that's the root of the problem, imo, which is an issue with the PLAYER and not related to the mud really. The end result is if the neutral/neutral-evil character is good at their job, people won't "see" their influence at work generally (except for the people that are meant to).

I don't really know a huge number of neutral players that are active, so it's hard to come up with examples. One obvious one was when Lachtli was self-outed for being a Sathonite-allied spy: He wasn't being overly obvious about it, and might have caught a few PCs by surprise by the confession. His help probably helped the evil side a little (not as much as another evil player would have, honestly, but hey! neutral characters have to be a little more subtle!!!). The point being that there might be neutral players actually playing as neutral (i.e. both sides) but it wouldn't be obvious at all, not ICly and not even OOCly (mostly).

Something was mentioned too about association and interaction for neutral-evil/slightly evil characters with neutral-good/good characters:
Lachtli is definitely more neutral-evil than neutral-good (but overall pretty strictly neutral and likely correctly percieved by most other PCs as more on the neutral-good side, I think). Whether that's reflected in the code I don't really know and I'm not sure it matters really, since many things, like motives, can't be calculated by the MUD and karma system (I think at least some people are doing 'good' deeds with ulterior motives ICly).

But to get to the point, he's one of the characters that does not mind at all associating with 'dark grey' area people publicly, to a degree. As long as the character isn't an idiot, anyway. So there is some possibility of interaction for those character types as I assume that there are more than just my character that is that way. The issue, of course, is not getting banned from areas where you can find those people (tact), and then actually finding out who's going to be friendly with you still if they find out you aren't the model of perfection (more tact).

I feel like there should be more of an attitude for general characters that if someone has not harmed you personally, then you should not be judging them. (Obviously for certain guilds this attitude doesn't make sense, I'm talking more about unaffiliated characters) Not every follower of every deity is some kind of zealot, after all. In general a more casual approach to deity worship would be preferred in my opinion.

[Olrane]

I feel like there should be more of an attitude for general characters that if someone has not harmed you personally, then you should not be judging them. (Obviously for certain guilds this attitude doesn't make sense, I'm talking more about unaffiliated characters) Not every follower of every deity is some kind of zealot, after all. In general a more casual approach to deity worship would be preferred in my opinion.

This is key. I remember a time when deity affiliation was a lot more downplayed than it is now. While it's certainly a defining part of a character, especially for some, it feels weird having one of the first questions you're asked be "whom do you follow". I can understand clerics, etc. being interested, but it seems that for many the favour penalty for being around oppositely aligned characters is so scary that what would be private information is treated as a need for public health.

A part of the overemphasis on religion is just the fact that there's a huge proportion of the population whose guild focus is religious in nature. The three clergies, the Crusade and the Order all can be considered to have religious goals, and they're the majority over the others (Shaos, Rangers, Scribe/Alchemist types, and Rogues).

[lanyara]

In general a more casual approach to deity worship would be preferred in my opinion.

Hmm. But how can this be possible?

The three clergies, the Crusade and the Order all can be considered to have religious goals

Yes. The whole system is extremely centric on the religion/faith, and also on the karma concept. I am not entirely sure if this is all wanted by wizards by the way, because there are some other, older threads suggesting to judge someone not by affiliation towards a deity but rather on the actions. But if the deity is evil and your deity is good, and both are more or less an enemy, and the worshippers of evil deities would mostly be spies anyway ... then the more logical solution is confrontation without compromise. Perhaps I misunderstood something here and it is also partially spearheaded by the crusaders.
But ... how could a Taniel cleric ever trust a Lilith worshipper? A cleric of Evren trusting a Sathonys worshipper?

It is also somewhat easy to convert someone (preaching) so ... the way more logical solution would be to either:
- convert them
- fight them down/scare them away

[Zehren]

In general a more casual approach to deity worship would be preferred in my opinion.

Hmm. But how can this be possible?

I think an important thing to remember here is that the deities in Geas exist. They are real, and alive or whatever to call them. There is no doubt to this, which would make zealotism seem more tangible than when there is doubt involved. *shrugs*

[Cuetlachtli]

to zehren: I'm aware of that. What I mean is that the existence and presence of Asral, for example, is not the same for a parchementmaker (or other similarly mundane tradesman) as it is for a cleric.

Some people would have a faith that knows of existence of a deity while others would have that faith _and_ act on it. That is my point I am trying to express.

[ganandorf]

So a few people have decided to help out the evil side, thanks.

Now lets hope the balance doesn't change to much

[lanyara]

I think the balance (due to numbers) will always fluctuate heavily. At one time you can see Sathos ruling the Mud (3 Sathos in one room ... that's quite an army) and at another time you'll rarely see a single one (or perhaps they don't enter "good areas" during that time?).