Geas

luminier wrote:Also I tend to agree with Ewelyn about darkelves. -Mostly- everyone roleplays them as "not so bad" when they should be treated like evils. Right now it's like the Crusaders are "evil" when all we've done since Luminier "took power" was "good" and all the evils have done is raid people and force them into submission and suddenly they are the unsung heroes who deserve protection?

Perhaps time for a new topic. Ha. But I believe it has some bearing on the topic. Evils are treated far too kindly and it's makes playing a good character quite difficult.

Would you mind to explain why it makes it difficult to play a good char?

It's just "my opinion" that darkelves should be roleplayed as bad people. It doesn't seem like they are right now, thats all. =D

Give specific examples of how you would roleplay a bad darkelf

Oh that's not what I meant.

Darkelves do a great job rping being evil.

Everyone else should be rping that they are evil though. Thats all. =D

I think Lilithian dark elves can be given more room and their existence is more easy to accept IG as they can be anything from brutal savages to honey-tongued sweet-talkers. Followers of Sathonys are a different matter though given the stigma following him carries. Ghouls even more so. I mean, ghouls. Monsters that eat people. At that point everything is pretty much stacked high against you, or atleadt should. I can imagine how much that would suck though. The option to become one never fails to confound me in a way, even if it is kinda cool to have them. But as Jezz once said it is bit like becoming a npc for others.

Just because I pretend not to do evil things or don't go about telling the world about all the evil things, doesn't make me less evil.

And the fact that while Sathos normally would be true evil or even slightly chaotic evil and yet Lucifer playing lawful evil doesn't make him good either.

He has his goals and if he can get them accomplished with less force than necessary, is reaching the goal by less bloody means less evil? I doubt so.

Or take the alchemists.... The guild rules say, amoung other things, no attacks on Bandama or fellow alchemists inside the guild. So in order to comply with those rules as a ghoul I take humanoid meat inside the guild and make sure my hunger is always satisfied while being inside the guild. It is not my fault that others don't object more to me eating humanoid meat openly. After all, I want to remain in the guild, so I do not cause trouble enough for others to cast me out.

As for treaties, Luminier complained about none being willing to make treaties with the crusaders. Here I must ask myself, is that really a complaint from your side? The fact that, from an outsider point of view, any agreement gets broken when it becomes unsuitable is not the real issue I'd say, its just the reasoning that any but the divine law is mute from a crusaders point of view. So, one comes to question, why start a treaty that the crusaders won't abide by in the first place?

Ill reiterate that I don't think darkelves are doing a bad job roleplaying.

But I think that -everyone else- should remember that darkelves are actually suppose to be "bad people". At least ones of the Sathonite variety as Delia mentioned.


And now you realize why it's tough to roleplay a Crusader.

If I make a treaty where evil gets to roam free I get nailed for not doing my job.

If I make a treaty where good gets the good end of the deal, everyone else hates us or just keeps fighting us an never agrees to a treaty.

C'est la vie man.

luminier wrote:Ill reiterate that I don't think darkelves are doing a bad job roleplaying.

But I think that -everyone else- should remember that darkelves are actually suppose to be "bad people". At least ones of the Sathonite variety as Delia mentioned.


And now you realize why it's tough to roleplay a Crusader.

If I make a treaty where evil gets to roam free I get nailed for not doing my job.

If I make a treaty where good gets the good end of the deal, everyone else hates us or just keeps fighting us an never agrees to a treaty.

C'est la vie man.

Just burn Asador down, man.

Zehren wrote:Just burn Asador down, man.

lol. +fucken1

Hello,

As player of a Darkelf, I think there are more then one side of the coin. I'll skip the details, as it would harm IG, but there might be darkelves who aim exactly at people forgetting about them or tolerating them. Easier with less focus upon yourself to do some thing. So I think it's reasonable for people to be ensnared by a convincing darkelf, for reasons unknown.

So, yes, people should remember they are evil, but should also leave some room for chars thinking differently. I can see why that makes it harder to play a 'good' character, yet fanatical positions will always yield response by those not exactly aligned faithwise. I would expect total agreement by devout followers of the same faith in the same sentence.

luminier wrote:But I think that -everyone else- should remember that darkelves are actually suppose to be "bad people". At least ones of the Sathonite variety as Delia mentioned.

I play Ghalt as reasonably polite to dark elves and friends because:
1: sometimes he wants something out of them (I think this is reasonable for a zhakrinite?) But mostly because
2: They can snap him in half like a toothpick, then reanimate him as an unholy abomination of all that is toothpickism.

I've seen some lowbie good types just not give a flip and be as rude as possible to evils, and I love them for it, but some of us got to be more pragmatic. ^_^

I have no problem with being polite. But when the opportunity arises to stab them in the back or otherwise hurt them without them being the wiser as to the culprit, it sounds like something I would do.

You can play a Zhakrinite everyway from sunday, so I won't comment on that.

Its up to the player and their characters to determine whether they consider a darkelf "evil."

I don't think we should ooc say people should IC ignore the valiant efforts of evils justifying their actions.

As for crusaders, its normal ic to dislike self-righteous, arrogant prudes.

I understand, you hate the cops until you need them!

haha absolutely! In any case, luminier does so much for the good side ooc... keep it up. But let the people decide if they like you or not ic.

Delmon wrote:Its up to the player and their characters to determine whether they consider a darkelf "evil."

I don't think we should ooc say people should IC ignore the valiant efforts of evils justifying their actions.

As for crusaders, its normal ic to dislike self-righteous, arrogant prudes.

THE GODDESS OF CHAOS DARKNESS AND THE INVADING GOBLIN HORDES IS SURELY JUST MISUNDERSTOOD. POOR LADY. HAVE SOME TEA.

hahhaha oh god Zehren, sometimes your comments are so underrated.

i laughed for a good 5 seconds.

I think this all boils down to two things:

option a)

You want tags on everybodies head if they are good / evil.

option b)

You do not want that.

The darkelves in geas sort of got a tag, but they also sort of try to
get away from that tag, well some do. It's entirely IC if people buy
it of them or not. History tells people they are evil, but even in the real
world, who listens to the teachings of old? And who says they are
always valid ?

I personally, and I think I said that a dozen times or more, think hidden
evil is more interesting then outright evil, for both sides. This is not a
game where good and evil are easily depictable, at least not as easy
as some seem to wish to have.

Facts that are to be taken into account though:

- Being a darkelf means 'OMG that person sacrificed a part of their soul to become what they are'.
- Arrising from that, does your char care what they did to get their body ?

That said, I'm getting tired of this whole 'darkelves' discussion, as it's been had so many times. In my opinion, get your head wrapped around that a brooding evil character will not yell "HEY I AM EVIL GET ME IF YOU CAN" to everybody unless they are forced to. So it's a perfectly valid move to try to convince people they made a dire
mistake in prejudging you (even if the dagger's already in your hand to slit their throat).

morgaine wrote:I think this all boils down to two things:

option a)

You want tags on everybodies head if they are good / evil.

option b)

You do not want that.

The darkelves in geas sort of got a tag, but they also sort of try to
get away from that tag, well some do. It's entirely IC if people buy
it of them or not. History tells people they are evil, but even in the real
world, who listens to the teachings of old? And who says they are
always valid ?

I personally, and I think I said that a dozen times or more, think hidden
evil is more interesting then outright evil, for both sides. This is not a
game where good and evil are easily depictable, at least not as easy
as some seem to wish to have.

Facts that are to be taken into account though:

- Being a darkelf means 'OMG that person sacrificed a part of their soul to become what they are'.
- Arrising from that, does your char care what they did to get their body ?

That said, I'm getting tired of this whole 'darkelves' discussion, as it's been had so many times. In my opinion, get your head wrapped around that a brooding evil character will not yell "HEY I AM EVIL GET ME IF YOU CAN" to everybody unless they are forced to. So it's a perfectly valid move to try to convince people they made a dire
mistake in prejudging you (even if the dagger's already in your hand to slit their throat).

I can see people possibly warming up to a misunderstood soul (oh they don't have one), possibly being ignorant but with active knowledge of what a darkelf is, I don't understand much with them except from a similarily aligned character, even a neutral character, I would think would have the presence of mind to understand what selling a soul to hell means. though that doesn't mean everyone hunts them or doesn't try to get along for different reasons based in fear, and perhaps eventually can develop attachments.

adanath wrote: I can see people possibly warming up to a misunderstood soul (oh they don't have one), possibly being ignorant but with active knowledge of what a darkelf is, I don't understand much with them except from a similarily aligned character, even a neutral character, I would think would have the presence of mind to understand what selling a soul to hell means. though that doesn't mean everyone hunts them or doesn't try to get along for different reasons based in fear, and perhaps eventually can develop attachments.

Yes, well. Certainly that is part of the problem. Everybody knows what a darkelf is and that they are to be hunted and feared. Ok, that is a design choice obviously and I don't have a problem with that. Yet:

- Usually that means, everybody you cross path will either tuck tail and run or
- Attack you on sight without even so much as saying a word (why would you say anything, why interact? it's a darkelf, it needs death).

I find this situation undesirable at best. First of all it does close the RP gap for darkelves quite nicely ( I don't consider torture sessions particularily good RP or anything, they are some meager means that are sometimes neccesary, but I could do perfectly without). From what I see, the most options are burning right now down to PVP and then some capture/torture RP with the goodies. I am not sure what I would wish to expect, but the current limit on options as to how to react to another character is ... sad in my eyes. Shun them, call them names, hate them, spit on them, whatever. But don't rush in every time to slice them up would be a start.

For example, let's say I have a less then legal deal on my hand ( trading with unicorn horns ? ) and would want to approach an alchemist to strike a deal. I couldn't because I'd be dead the moment I go near anybody that is remotely good. Good situation ? No.

But that's just my 2cc, I'm not complaining, I'm just trying to express my view on limititations that are for roleplay that goes beyond the usual. If that can't be changed or everybody else likes it the way it is, taht's fine for me.