I'm not going into the whole already-beaten-to-death discussion about who can kick whose arse more effectively, but let me answer your question. Just ask yourself who is actually hunting Sathos if those said Sathos are not provoking being hunted, and are also not in the company of hunted people. Answer: Either no one or maybe Crusaders if they feel particulary dutiful. Now, let's turn the thing around. Who is actually hunting Crusaders if they aren't provoking being hunted, and are also not in the company of hunted people? Answer: No one, or maybe Jezz/some Order dudes if he/they feels/feel particulary bored.jezz wrote:And well, last post of Abh and Venim somehow are opposite to Golub's hints. If we are good then, and crusaders are SO hated, why noone fights them?
See the scheme? The only ones who actually kill each other out of principle are the ones on the far evil, and the ones on the far good side. Yeah, Yegerfin (disclaimer: sorry Yeg for using you so often as example, but you're just too darn perfect for it ) might "basssh you hardsssz" if you eat his boars or steal a certain globe, but usually he won't do such a thing to you otherwise (if you aren't in said wrong company). So basically we have a group of people who kills the really good guys because... well... that's what they think they have to do, and you have a group of people who kill the really evil guys because they are... evil. *yawn*. And then we have all those people in the middle who get a free show whenever Jezz meets Venim and are otherwise completely indifferent towards good/evil/whatever as long as it doesn't affect them and their business negatively (such as having their lockers raided, their horses stolen, or being killed by someone inconsiderate). Not only do those people seem to think that human sacrifice is a droll and picturesque custom, they also seem to consider those sacrifices to be less of problem than the self-righteous, stick-up-their-ass behaviour of lawful good characters, and that looks at least to me like a very flawed set of priorities.
To conclude my again very lengthy note, let me tell what I would like to see, even though I know things right now are very different and some people would not like the change: the evil characters should have a goal and a plan. To achieve that goal they use the means evil characters have, including lying, cheating, bribing, murdering, betraying. Since that kind of less than moral behaviour is (or should be) unique to evil characters, some new players might be actually drawn to that kind of gameplay. Now, those kind of actions would naturally affect the life of every non-evil character negatively (for example a pillaged and destroyed town just doesn't fly well with trade and profit), and those characters would then either try to prevent it to happen again, or would turn to those who are very proficient in getting rid of the evil-doers: the good characters. Said good characters would then hunt the evil guys for their evil deeds and not merely because they have the evil-tag still attached to their brand-new bone armour. Basically I'd like to get away from the "I hunt you because I am good and you are evil" and replace it with a system where people are actually attacked for their deeds, and those deeds should have a motive which is in accordance with the way a character plays. So yes, I think a Satho who doesn't kill innocents and doesn't commit crimes should not be hunted. But I also think he/she shouldn't be a Satho either then.