Just a few remarks especially to a few points @Luminier mentioned. But let me first state that @Ferranifer mentioned some great points. I think the PO Ferranifer is even more ancient than @Jezz ...
I think it is ok to say that the evil side/evil chars in general have it not easy to play right now, due to several reasons.
Something simple like NPCs not entering the crossroad would be really quite a trivial change compared to other "problems" faced playing certain character concepts.
Let's take the watchtowers briefly, as they were mentioned a lot, and they can be looked at from at least two sides (opposing sides).
Playing with Lanyara as a cleric of Taniel, watchtowers were really her best friends. They happily helped shoot at masked folks again and again.
For evil characters though, watchtowers can be a bigger problem. I don't want to complain about watchtowers here, I just want to point out that they have a definite impact on the game world, and the resulting behaviour of the characters.
One consequence of them, which I found hilarious, were statements like "wait a second... my head is dizzy, so many reports of people walking around..."
I can only imagine if that can contribute to spam!
hijacked to talk about how underpowered a certain side is and how overpowered the other is
I think the real question should not be so much how over- or underpowered any side is, but instead this question should be addressed:
- Do we want active players or not?
And here I really mean in general, no matter if evil, good or neutral, no matter if PvP heavy or one preferring interaction with other characters. I do agree with everyone who would say that too many characters may want to cater towards the evil side if it were to be too easy, because you would enjoy more freedoms without restrictions or repercussions as an evil character.
And that this, as a result may perhaps become a problem for the MUD, because so many would want to be evil, and not many would want to be good.
I can see that argument clearly.
Let's say we would have 20 players at a given time, and 50% would be evil characters (or spies for the evil). And these evil characters may be stronger or trained up a lot. This would probably not be wanted.
If everyone were to be evil, being evil would cease to be something special.
But the situation right now is really very difficult for anyone being openly evil, right to the point where, despite being somewhat stronger, you just can't really do much anymore other than non-stop PvP.
And without anyone being evil, evil would not be something special at all - evil would simply, suddenly no longer "exist". As in, players wouldn't really *want* to be evil anymore at all. Especially not anyone being evil without having any special powers.
Pretty most game features work against evil characters from my point of view right now, and I think it is slightly overdone right now. They also are denied of places like the alchemist guild - because, well, if you do decide to raid that guild, then I can understand other players not wanting to have to associate with you in any way. Which again taps into the "psychopath" route of roleplay, and I think this is a very limited way to play in a MUD. Probably one that comes to a dead end eventually.
[...] Neither is having a horrible karma
Even the current karma concept works more in favour for the good side and against the evil side. But I don't want to complain about it here.
Hellrifts. I don't know what you mean by not being able to "go anywhere" with hellrift. They actually do the opposite. As a sathonite i found hellrifts to be absolutely essential and extremely versatile. Don't like your odds in a fight? May as well rift. Need to do your nasty daily deeds? May as well rift. Need to get back home to sacrifice that bastard goodie? May as well rift.
The rifts are a great advantage of course. Sathos always had cool miracles.
But let's take the role of a follower of an evil deity. With the current system I think it would be rather trivial to find out who is evil, and then act on this information (karma leaking when teaming). For the good characters it makes a lot of sense to do so, of course. You are saving a lost soul here, you try to bring that evil follower back into society - or you play hard on him, want to outlaw him, push him away from civilization.
Which can also work, and the NPCs would most likely cheer up for you, because you protect them.
But what happens then for the evil characters?
I think in most situations one of these will happen:
- the character concept is changed to accomodate to become good/or at least neutral
- character is stopped being played
The first point is not so bad, because at least you could
continue with the character. A few "evil" characters became at least neutral that way. Some became even good. I think this can be an interesting change in many situations.
But the evil side... hmm, they kind of lost a character who could
support them.
The second point, where a character is abandoned, and no longer played, is really a very big problem.
I think most players would rather prefer to have active characters, no matter if friends or foes. It is just kind of boring to play alone.
For admin, I think the question should be asked - are worshipper of an evil deity extremely evil as well automatically? Currently it does not seem to be possible to behave as a "good guy" while worshipping an evil deity at all.
In my opinion this removes the ability to play "sneaky" or "covertly". If all worshippers of evil deities are automatically on the extremely evil side, then the good chars don't really need any additional reason to do something against the evil. It just falls into your hands, just wait a bit until they do something, because most of the time you can be assured that they do something where you can punish them.
Psychopaths. Alright sure, most sathonites roleplay crazy bastards, but they also practice rituals dealing with undead/sacrificing/blood.
That is true. But years ago, they weren't really required or let's say
encouraged to become that much of a psychopath.
Being a cannibal is a little bit psycho ...
Most actions today for the evil chars are quite extreme. It is not solely bad, I think, because it also did add new elements to the game (like ghoulism). And ghoulism, or other such game features, could be expanded and extended. Which can still be a lot of fun.
But I think if your "evil" character has become the ultimate psycho, it would be a bit odd to behave like an average nice guy again - noone would want to believe you. You slaughtered Gerrit, skinned him, butchered him, ate him, and then you want to go to the marketplace and chat. Hmmmmm.
But without being able to portray yourself as a nice guy at all, I think that takes away an option.
No Sathonite has to cannibalize but most do just so they can gain the advantage of seeing in the dark.
Hehe ... I didn't even know that this gave an advantage.

I always thought it was for pure roleplay reasons or perhaps because it affects the karma, or may be an action appreciated by Sathonys.
But personally, I find cannibalism to be really a gross action. In general to me it seems the Sathos have really become more psychos than they used to be. I also wonder a bit... would the Sathos become cannibals if cannibalism would NOT give them an code technical advantage? My current opinion is that we would have less Sathos do exactly that. And if that were to be true, I think the game code should not encourage being a psychopath too much ... if all Sathos are psychos, how do you want to interact with them? PvP would be more logical hmmm...
Scared people do not (usually) make for talkative people.
That is true, darkness etc.. always was a great factor in PvP. And when your character can end up as the next sacrifice, of course most may want to respond in one way or the other, most of the time running away.
PvP makes talking difficult of course.
I think
losing the ability to talk with other characters makes it very difficult to do anything else other than PvP in the long run (for the extremely evil characters).
PvP. Well if you don't like PvP don't join a guild. Or join the Druids.
Hmm, this is not completely true. Young characters without any guild affiliation were attacked as well, so hence enter, or have to enter, PvP too. The stronger characters can often dictate what happens, because they can initiate the PvP.
That also seems to have changed by the way, because I think the old Sathos didn't really outright attack young characters for no reason at all other than to capture and torture them. Like what happens today....
That really encourages these characters mostly to:
- get help from stronger, good characters
- powertrain up so that they can be of some threat, or perhaps join a guild that can help against them
Hmm. I am not at all critisizing the Sathos here really, but to me, if I were to play a Satho, it would seem as if the Sathos
on their own help push a trend against them, at least a bit.
If one attacks everything, then it shouldn't be surprised if they aren't liked. You kind of help weaken any kind of potential support for your roleplay here.
IMHO it is not really smart to make most about everyone your enemy.
It also does not seem to work, due to some reasons, because Sathos are, at least right now, a bit inactive in regards to other characters.
As for the druids, I think right now they have less priority because the Evren clergy has a higher priority. But I think the Evren clergy will worsen the situation for the Sathos even more, because then you would have your natural arch enemy, and the crusaders will want to help both Evren and Taniel.

It is perhaps more a general question of the conflict type. Should conflicts focus on PvP alone? That would make it difficult to spend time thinking about any plots ... because most would just center around PvP.
A few more comments though, to what @Delmon wrote:
Along with this, you could easily raise revenants because of elves higher wisdom ability, and as a darkelf you could spam darkness miracle to help you out with npcs and city entry.
Revenants have basically one main function, which is for PvP really.
As for darkelves, hmm ... I can't remember any darkelf who really managed to enter Elvandar or Arborea lately.
Anyway, I don't want to discuss too much about anything being overpowered, or not.
One more comment to what @Per wrote:
You roleplay reacting to the code. You don't abuse the code mechanics to gain an OOC edge or to achieve what the PLAYER wants.
I think the comment is in regards to faith and karma. But my question here would be - can the code mechanics be accurate enough, or do they in fact encourage or even force players to perform within the constraints of the system? Because there were huge changes which happened, with great IC implications!

The biggest one, for me playing a character, is that the gods watch what the mortals do. It was a really huge surprise to me.
I thought that gods don't bother too much what mortals do, because mortals aren't so important to begin with for a god, especially not mortals who don't worship me (if I were to be a god). For me this was by far the biggest change because it had a tremendous implication - it meant that gods _do_ in fact care what mortals do. They all use the same system as well (the karma scale).
But I think this is a case where rather the code system at hand is in the wrong, rather than the players. As a cleric character, you can go in opposition to what other characters state, at least you can try to. But you can't really go in opposition to what the gods demand of you. Is the status quo at hand the best solution? Or does it instead cause more problems?
Anyway, I don't want to write too much about this or that problem here.
Let me instead just finish that I think we all want to have other, active participative players (because it would just be boring to play a MUD almost alone), and I think sometimes we should listen when other players complain about something. Not necessarily because we may agree or disagree with what they say, but because for every complaint voiced there may be a good reason behind it. I also think that admin is neither that happy with a few events having happened. But of course the players depend on an active admin just as much too.