AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

I'd meant to be agreeing with you, Genar, and responding mostly to Needled.

Apologies for being unclear there.

Totally cool.

Without going into more detail about why not, I will just note that as a good player you're hardly banned from going anywhere. So, if you don't like Kohlingen, it's not the end of the world.

If good characters can take their marbles and go almost anywhere else, but evil players have far fewer options, that's an observation *for* Tarkuul being able to be a hub, not against. Fewer places to go means that they'll group up in the few places they can.

I disagree. Secrecy + Tarkuul = Non existent. Evil + Secrecy = Common, so therefore, Non-Tarkuul + Evil = Don't go to Tarkuul.

I kinda have to agree to that one as a major drawback for Tarkuul, me and some friends spent weeks plotting to pull off something pretty evil and took it to Tarkuul to see if anyone else wanted in on it. The next day we were told that the paladin squad were already aware of the entire plan. As one of at most two evil hubs on the server, which is completely open about where it is, the place is apparently so thoroughly infiltrated by spies that you can't even really get any major plotting done.

We didn't even expect the plan to work in the slightest, but we at least hoped that being thwarted would be exciting. It actually just kinda boiled down to being handed a memo at the office.

Needled247 wrote:

Sorry, but Tarkuul isn't for everyone (and lets not discuss why not, it's already been done).

But yes Murkoph, that does suck :/

Let's move some with this discussion:

Most agree another hub is needed, how will it be formed?

-OOC calls for either a new generation of evils (So they can plan a method of building it) or old characters?
-Call for a DM to drive a plot to form one?
-Etc?

And will this end up being another RP hub that'll get demolished after years work in just a day?

Murkoph wrote:

I kinda have to agree to that one as a major drawback for Tarkuul, me and some friends spent weeks plotting to pull off something pretty evil and took it to Tarkuul to see if anyone else wanted in on it. The next day we were told that the paladin squad were already aware of the entire plan. As one of at most two evil hubs on the server, which is completely open about where it is, the place is apparently so thoroughly infiltrated by spies that you can't even really get any major plotting done.

We didn't even expect the plan to work in the slightest, but we at least hoped that being thwarted would be exciting. It actually just kinda boiled down to being handed a memo at the office.

If this is what I think this was about, I think it actually got out because it threatened an evil PC's interests. Even if it's not the case, well, this happens - Evil PCs are naturally incredibly diverse, and Forgotten Realms doesn't help by compelling PCs of various evil faiths to treat each other as enemies before facing their more general foes, the good guys. This is kind of where "good vs evil" breaks down.

Tarkuul is "traditionally" compromised by a lot of people that make throw-away alts. Taking a stricter stance on multiple characters, I think, will help with the Good vs. Evil debate because it will encourage more realistic behavior with a player's limited selection of characters. Anything to encourage personal accountability and investment in a single character will lead to stronger factions across the board.

Yeah I don't think so. Maybe factions will get marginally stronger but if people are forced to play characters they no longer want to play, they're going to just quit and our entire player population will decrease. It's certainly better when people stick with it and roll with the punches but not everyone should be forced to learn to enjoy it.

Case in point: you. Sure you came back... eventually.

And it doesn't change the fact that Evil is naturally fractitious and designed to be moreso on FR. It's impossible to predict whether more-invested characters would be more or less inclined to individualism.

I'm not saying one character and you're out, but one at a time, certainly.

When I first started with the Syndicate, my goal was to introduce a criminal organization to a neutral hub. So that we could interact in the same city with a Good vs Evil; Chaos vs Law conflict. I would argue that evil doesn't need a hub, folks just need to find a place where they can be more actively involved with conflict.

What about a Cult of Gargauth nestled into Kohlingen affairs? Or a Sharran cell tucked into the Salandran Temple. Or a following of Eldreth Veluuthra in Winya.

Now, I do understand these are more 'secretive' evils. But the largest complaint with these kind of secretive evils is that they don't often get into conflict with other people-- or at the very least, to most, it wouldn't appear that they do! So if you nestle them into a place where there's going to be conflict, you can cue up the struggle of survival, finding ways to be immune to persecution, and the like.

If you're more interested in 'Open' evils, try looking into all the ways that an evil can be open and still right beside, nearby, or interacting with good guys (Not necessarily on good terms, but in terms that are at least better than outright murder-on-sight). The Church of Bane, for example-- They're not simply a bunch of kitten killers. They're a group of people who believe fear with authority can pave the way to enlightenment and peace. Or the Drow, for example-- probably have a very unique niche in the market due to supplies only found underground.

This isn't the answer to every question. This little bit isn't expected to cover everything, but should at least give a little insight or provoke a few thoughts. I'm not at all trying to streamline evil into secretive folks, and discarding those who favor a more open brew of conflict. Just giving some food-fer-thought if you're trying to take a group of people and make an evil presence somewhere.

As an aside, its also much easier request-wise to take a group and inhabit something that's already in the module, and fix it up to meet your liking. You can always try to build something from the ground up, but its just a tougher request. And yes, there are tons of examples where people have tried to set something up in an empty place already in the module and haven't succeeded for this reason or that-- but by and large, this is something you should also consider.

Limiting characters per account will put the final nail in Amia's grave.

Alts are not the issue, having the RP focus to turn these throwaways into mains is.

Fact is, Tarkuul is not suitable for all evils. That's not going to change any time soon. Now leave Tarkuul's alignment and political standing be and find, as OP and indeed the discussion in Amia's state thread said:

serbiris wrote:

There are a number of fundamental difficulties with playing Evil PCs, but I'd like to raise just one major point because it is comparatively easy to fix - DM support.

All the main 3 Evil factions active (Tarkuul, UD and Aurilites) have fantastic DMs who support them. However, considering previous Evil factions get destroyed, we're left no room for Criminal RP hubs or characters who defy aforementioned faction's rules and ethics.

We're not looking for an Evil Cordor/Kohl/Bendir, but rather an Evil Guldorand or Uhm in size. An area that can be used as a strictly Evil-based hub

I suppose my kind of query with that, Yaster, is why wouldn't you want that same Criminal RP based somewhere where you can actually interact with people, you know? For example, you could probably take 10 players and start occupying Uhm. But what fun would that be?

The only way it would be fun (Read: opinionated), is if you were able to get a DM to help work with you until you build a criminal element so large and so threatening that good guys then have to get involved for fear of their own safety.

You could alternatively build a small group in Uhm (As an example city), and go out on little sortie missions to steal things.

But I think you'll find it much more attractive to nestle yourself into somewhere already active and busy with players all over the place, to start building a group there. You can always stash a hideout somewhere else, as a fall-back plan. Its what my friends and I have been doing in Cordor, and we've been loving it. Yeah, we've met setbacks. We've had characters basically become perma'd, because they've gotten caught or put themselves into situations where we wouldn't be able to save them. But its really juicy, really constant conflict.

Of course, if you prefer instead to build something from the ground up, or occupy something, and have it be a kind of Eden/Safe Haven for the Unsavory, please do it! I'm not trying to push you away from something you (all?) might be interested in.

But I will say that the key to conflict, as simple as it sounds, is it that takes two to tango. If you're wanting Good vs Evil conflict, you'll need to find a way to involve good guys in order to do it!

It's been pointed out many times that evil has trouble working together. I'll be the first to admit that I tend to blow off a character if I know it's someone's Alt#7, so I can't imagine I'm the only one. If there was at least some sort of -effort- to curb the behavior, I'd be much more willing to bend character a little to bring people into the fold, knowing the character represented some sort of investment. I don't find the argument of "Well, inclusive RP turns alts to main!" particularly compelling, because there was a point where I bent over backwards to bring characters in because I got sick of the clique accusations. Didn't really make much difference, the "power player" accusations never got any better and I still rarely saw the same characters log in more than one or twice, or disappear when they aren't immediately handed their hopes and dreams on a breakfast tray. So now I'm back to observing if a character has any permanence before even bothering. Since I strongly doubt I have the only evil character that acts this way, yes, the loose alt rules negatively effect the balance of 'alignment success' on the server. The discussion becomes whether it's the DMs prerogative to fix it, or if it's something we'll just have to work around. My stance is for firmer rules on both alt characters AND alt-accounts.

Yaster Galer wrote:

Limiting characters per account will put the final nail in Amia's grave.

Alts are not the issue, having the RP focus to turn these throwaways into mains is.

Fact is, Tarkuul is not suitable for all evils. That's not going to change any time soon. Now leave Tarkuul's alignment and political standing be and find, as OP and indeed the discussion in Amia's state thread said:

serbiris wrote:

There are a number of fundamental difficulties with playing Evil PCs, but I'd like to raise just one major point because it is comparatively easy to fix - DM support.

All the main 3 Evil factions active (Tarkuul, UD and Aurilites) have fantastic DMs who support them. However, considering previous Evil factions get destroyed, we're left no room for Criminal RP hubs or characters who defy aforementioned faction's rules and ethics.

We're not looking for an Evil Cordor/Kohl/Bendir, but rather an Evil Guldorand or Uhm in size. An area that can be used as a strictly Evil-based hub

I disagree with you on alts. You see the reason people fill their deck with alts is that they have an outlet to involve themselves everywhere all the time whenever it's happening. They get involved with a series of events because they can. But when they arrive on scene, no one really knows that character or pays them much mind, unless they went ahead and did the alt-buddy system, which happens more or less. They haven't made any impressions. Your alts are generally tossed to the sidelines while the heroes do all the work. Maybe you get to participate yes, but you don't get the quality experience of being someone in the eye of the storm. You participate, I think, much like an NPC participates. Which is a problem if you're claiming you've been a local Cordorian a lot longer than say, Andrew Fryar has. A) for the other players who dedicate themselves to a particular area. B) for the DMs who have to handle all your split personalities. I think DMs at least in the past have frowned upon a player who uses multiple PCs in a singular plot, even this happens.

If you need a hub, if you have to have a hub to RP your character well, then by all means stick to one hub. But those who disassociate themselves by having too many faces in too many places just go on not really doing anything...I have seen the alters have the most trouble getting into the RP in mass, in retrospect. The ones who try too hard to be on the scene generally lose out. I as a player tend not to encounter other PCs of the same players, characters who know things about me and my character, and use that to their social advantage. I have seen this happen and I just try to stay clear of these sorts of alts. What I suggest, as I always suggest, is just to focus on one really awesome character, one that is just -fun- for you to play no matter your environment. One that drives you to want to play out their story. You don't need to be Tarkuulian to do that, or Kohlingenite for that matter, just indulge a character that suits you best and that you play and RP well and have fun doing it.

Mr. Hackums wrote:

Yeah, we've met setbacks. We've had characters basically become perma'd, because they've gotten caught or put themselves into situations where we wouldn't be able to save them. But its really juicy, really constant conflict.

Can I asked if those you performed crimes on had any inkling of consequence too?

Now it really sucks that NWN balls'd up Pickpocketing and, though the actual DC part of PPing is good with the widget, it's still not a great skill. So unless you get OOC consent (which 9/10 times will ruin that RP) there's not much you can do. One of the reasons I dropped my Assassin of Beshaba wasn't because I couldn't perma my hits, but that me killing them only seemed to only ever have negative consequence to me. They'd be back the next day with backup and kill me in return, as if a planned and consented hit never happened.

Aiseth wrote:

I disagree with you on alts. You see the reason people fill their deck with alts is that they have an outlet to involve themselves everywhere all the time whenever it's happening. They get involved with a series of events because they can. But when they arrive on scene, no one really knows that character or pays them much mind, unless they went ahead and did the alt-buddy system, which happens more or less. They haven't made any impressions. Your alts are generally tossed to the sidelines while the heroes do all the work. Maybe you get to participate yes, but you don't get the quality experience of being someone in the eye of the storm. You participate, I think, much like an NPC participates. Which is a problem if you're claiming you've been a local Cordorian a lot longer than say, Andrew Fryar has. A) for the other players who dedicate themselves to a particular area. B) for the DMs who have to handle all your split personalities. I think DMs at least in the past have frowned upon a player who uses multiple PCs in a singular plot, even this happens.

If you need a hub, if you have to have a hub to RP your character well, then by all means stick to one hub. But those who disassociate themselves by having too many faces in too many places just go on not really doing anything...I have seen the alters have the most trouble getting into the RP in mass, in retrospect. The ones who try too hard to be on the scene generally lose out. I as a player tend not to encounter other PCs of the same players, characters who know things about me and my character, and use that to their social advantage. I have seen this happen and I just try to stay clear of these sorts of alts. What I suggest, as I always suggest, is just to focus on one really awesome character, one that is just -fun- for you to play no matter your environment. One that drives you to want to play out their story. You don't need to be Tarkuulian to do that, or Kohlingenite for that matter, just indulge a character that suits you best and that you play and RP well and have fun doing it.

Don't get me wrong, I share your points on alts. My main concern was by limiting them, all that it'll do is coax others to leave. Some have altitis, some only ever play as an all-star, it just means that the latter is most likely to get involved in long plots and feature as an influence.

There have been consequences galooore in the Cordor plot. Lots of variation in severity, yes. And I think in the two instances where our folks were jailed for attacks on a PC, no, there wasn't a sort of equal consequence. But looking at the story as a whole, there's a tooon of push and shove. Consequences abound-- For both the lawful and the chaotic.

Some of it is more emotional than physical, as well. I've had a great time watching Marcus Aurelius evolve throughout the plot, for example.

You two are probably the strongest proponents for alt restrictions but you're both also kinda really biased in that you both have pretty focused mains. This causes a problem of lack of perspective - sure, you see the problems that alts cause, and I agree that they are Not Good Things. But not everyone plays alts to get everyone in every plot, or to be throwaways. I make alts to help my friends level, or to test out different playstyles, or to play a character who isn't a whiny sadsack facestabber for half a minute on wednesdays (half a minute because then they turn into sadsacks themselves, WHAT IS WRONG WITH M-I jest, mostly), or because my main gets bogged down in some plot and rather than log on just to have him pace around and wait for things, I'll play someone else. I have a few alts which I don't play that much because they have difficulty getting involved - I'd be SoL if my Malarite druid/shifter was my main because almost no one likes Malarites and druids hate some of the few who don't. Some people just enjoy alts, and have the time and/or inclination to make it work. It's not all bad.

Really this just looks like an issue of "I want people to play like I do".

Edit: I could maybe get behind "Only one PC in a faction, per player" but I don't think it would work out either. May be a more realistic option to discuss, since it does at least allow for leveling/bumming around alts.

Quote:

Don't get me wrong, I share your points on alts. My main concern was by limiting them, all that it'll do is coax others to leave. Some have altitis, some only ever play as an all-star, it just means that the latter is most likely to get involved in long plots and feature as an influence.

Simple, if they want a new alt after let's say... character#3, they request it like any special character. I of course can foresee that more 'special character requests' would plug the system. It is a matter if the DMs are ready to handle that sort of 'alt-capping' on the forum side of things, if we're serious about this. I will guess that it isn't worth it to them, the amount of work involved, etc. Sometimes finding the right character is about going through a series of alts. More or less though, most people get settled, they find a character that is right for them and then they go through what I call the BS period, where characters begrudgingly accept them as a member of society. Once you crack that pot, you're pretty much "In". I hate to say it, but that's how it is, time and time again. There's an In crowd wherever you go in Amia, and they don't like nobody they didn't mold themselves. Fight them and their ideals, and continue to fight them, and you'll see...

But yes, I don't like alt-heavy players. They suck. I hate their guts. My motive has been to create more detailed characters in a detailed environment really. And when I say create characters, yes, I mean for other people to do my bidding. I just think it's more enriching overall. I don't know... maybe people come here for different reasons. I like a story line I can follow.

I'm not saying ban alts outright. Luca isn't the only character in my vault. I do think though that you should have limited vault space, and shouldn't be allowed to simply create another account to get more. Want a slot back, perma one of your guys. Maybe make it so only a declared main can get requests done. I don't know. -Any- sort of control would be a step in the right direction.

Agreed.

NinjaClarinet wrote:

It's been pointed out many times that evil has trouble working together. I'll be the first to admit that I tend to blow off a character if I know it's someone's Alt#7, so I can't imagine I'm the only one. If there was at least some sort of -effort- to curb the behavior, I'd be much more willing to bend character a little to bring people into the fold, knowing the character represented some sort of investment. I don't find the argument of "Well, inclusive RP turns alts to main!" particularly compelling, because there was a point where I bent over backwards to bring characters in because I got sick of the clique accusations. Didn't really make much difference, the "power player" accusations never got any better and I still rarely saw the same characters log in more than one or twice, or disappear when they aren't immediately handed their hopes and dreams on a breakfast tray. So now I'm back to observing if a character has any permanence before even bothering. Since I strongly doubt I have the only evil character that acts this way, yes, the loose alt rules negatively effect the balance of 'alignment success' on the server. The discussion becomes whether it's the DMs prerogative to fix it, or if it's something we'll just have to work around. My stance is for firmer rules on both alt characters AND alt-accounts.

I tend to agree with these thoughts, for the most part. Though, it applies to all alignments.

serbiris wrote:

Really this just looks like an issue of "I want people to play like I do".

Edit: I could maybe get behind "Only one PC in a faction, per player" but I don't think it would work out either. May be a more realistic option to discuss, since it does at least allow for leveling/bumming around alts.

First part, no way. I want people to play what their characters will do. But it's very difficult to get involved with a character, to only have them be gone in a month, then maybe return in another month, or not, depending on the whim of said person with altitis. Developed characters take time and effort.

@ Edit: (I could maybe get behind "Only one PC in a faction, per player" )
This.
I disagree with allowing players to run multiple characters, in multiple factions. There is just too much room for metagaming, you as a player, are now privy to everything going on in those (potentially opposing) factions. Having so much exposed on the forums is bad enough, let alone having people allowed into the private faction forums with several characters. but you're right, this isn't the thread for that.

Aiseth wrote:

But yes, I don't like alt-heavy players. They suck. I hate their guts. My motive has been to create more detailed characters in a detailed environment really. And when I say create characters, yes, I mean for other people to do my bidding. I just think it's more enriching overall. I don't know... maybe people come here for different reasons. I like a story line I can follow.

I can relate to much of this, lol.

At the moment, there's people who log more in-game RP time with their "alt" in a week than I'm able to do in a month. I just don't have the schedule to support a lot of time in game. Telling someone who invests more energy on an "alt" than I do on my main that they're not playing right... no thank you. Whether a character is "detailed" or whatever is not adequately measured by the number of other characters in the same vault.

One faction per player will provide us with quality over quantity

Muspelkvist wrote:

One faction per player will provide us with quality over quantity

Every faction on the server losing two-thirds of its members overnight is a price you're willing to pay?

Let's not make the "Being Evil" thread about creating more restrictions on folks. Restrictions make me a sad gorgometh.

Liz wrote:

Muspelkvist wrote:

One faction per player will provide us with quality over quantity

Every faction on the server losing two-thirds of its members overnight is a price you're willing to pay?

Hrrrm . Vilrath would probably die .. I suppose not

Well, I see it as a problem that generally effects evil groups far more adversely than it does good. I think it worthy of discussion on those merits. If you don't like restrictions, think of incentives then. Here's a good incentive: you're allowed to make requests for a dedicated main.

Mr. Hackums wrote:

There have been consequences galooore in the Cordor plot. Lots of variation in severity, yes. And I think in the two instances where our folks were jailed for attacks on a PC, no, there wasn't a sort of equal consequence. But looking at the story as a whole, there's a tooon of push and shove. Consequences abound-- For both the lawful and the chaotic.

Some of it is more emotional than physical, as well. I've had a great time watching Marcus Aurelius evolve throughout the plot, for example.

That's good to hear!

In my experience, even if an Evil character won a battle, they'd be the ones who'd lose the war.

But really, if you dig deep into the matter, "restrictions" (not on the alt issue alone, mind) are the only thing the team will be able to do if they have any interest in changing the balance at all. Because gods know implementing any sort of worthwhile rewards or incentives will spark a bitchstorm from those that aren't eligible.

NinjaClarinet wrote:

Well, I see it as a problem that generally effects evil groups far more adversely than it does good. I think it worthy of discussion on those merits. If you don't like restrictions, think of incentives then. Here's a good incentive: you're allowed to make requests for a dedicated main.

Hahaha. No. Stifling creativity and options would murder the server more likely than not.

Also, I see more alts in non-Evil factions than in Evil.

Incentives like that should not be restriction focused. Faction leaders/ heads and members should have the autonomy to decide what is in their best interests to have player members who are divided across multiple factions or not.

By the same rights, players can decide if it is in their best interest to spread themselves so thin or focus their efforts on making a lasting impact with fewer (or one) toons.

I don't necessarily see how that balances things, other than maybe forcing all "good" players to stop playing their "evil" characters. Doesn't that create a bigger imbalance for folks who enjoy the roleplay of both?

gorgometh wrote:

Faction leaders/ heads and members should have the autonomy to decide what is in their best interests to have player members who are divided across multiple factions or not.

Fine in theory. Not so fine when the accusations fly because someone gets turned down for entirely OOC reasons, which I hate doing and is damn hard to reconcile IC past "I get bad vibes from this guy".

So, the cost associated with having a terrible case of alt-itis is that people can't trust you to invest enough time in any one character to make it worthwhile to allow it into a faction.

That's the system working perfectly, I think.

Because I found it so relevant to this post! copyright ABC/Disney I'm sure.

[The Paladin] "We need to do this the right way"

"No, we don't. We just need to succeed, and the way we do that is by just being who we are - a hero, a villian, a pirate! It doesn't matter which because we are going to need all those skills whether we can stomach them or not."

[The Villian] "And what's your skill, savior?"

"I'm a Mother!"

#fantasyworldproblems

I don't really like the idea of limiting alts. Ok maybe I -would- top it out heh around ten or fifteen. I can't say -I- can honestly put enough time and effort into playing that many characters. I've usually just stuck with my own self imposed three character limit. So limiting alts -could- be as stated detrimental to the server population in some cases.

One thing that I -do- think would be a very good implimentation is to limit the number of factions a player can join, per player. I myself actually would think one faction per player would be "ideal" but to be honest some like playing both good and evil characters. I've stated this before in server wide events if you have a "heavy hitter" character that faction "A" depends on but then as well you have another character on faction "B" that has the same level of importance, when that player uses one or the other one of those faction "A" or "B" toons the other faction loses out and it's not "game mechanic wise" or "situationally" fair for other members of the faction that is losing a key member due to ooc reasons and doesn't make sense rpwise the subject comes up.

So saying that, I would at most -suggest- a two faction minimum per player and as a player do what you can to keep at least one of the toons in a certain faction or even "participation"(not necassarily just for factions but maybe for indepth rp as well) on the down low. A character that just mainly works in rp in the backdrop of things and not necassarily one that is depended on by the majority of the faction or situational rp, or event.

If you place -both- characters in a position of dependability as far as PvP presence goes or even leadership then one or the other of the factions you join as a player will suffer in your absence while your on your alt. I've seen it too many times to count when I was running my own faction. With comments like "Sorry I can't be at the event as Faction "A's"(the one I ran) Captain because I have to play my alt in Faction "B". Understandably, that was my own fault for allowing a player with mixed "loyalties" to attain such a high rank in the faction I was running but still, some common descency and self imposed responsibility would have avoided the conflict of interest completely.

I would back a Server imposed two faction limit per player. Responsibility being placed on that player to pick one character that will always be the "main" faction toon no matter how dire the situation. Don't get me wrong I'm guilty of it too to be honest lol to a degree. It's easy to do all I can say is try -not- to do it if at all possible.

Roleplay would be -much- more consistent, consise and involving if it actually -mattered- to a player what kind of position their "main" faction was in. I understand different styles in different piles. lol but this is just my opinion and suggestions I thought I'd give.

A solution as well as for an -evil- city could be just make Cordor more apparent as one. Where the guards "look the other way" if their paid enough.(dm supervised of course), A complete underworld -right- under the very streets of Cordor, oh wait there is isn't there?(spoiler

). To be honest Cordor isn't as -good- as most people think it is. Gamewise it's a starter city for all the characters in the game where they start out both good, evil, lawful and chaotic. I see it sort of like Waterdeep having a bit for every toon a city of tolerance. An adventure funded port city with all colors of differing characters stepping off the boat. Kohlingen not as -gold plated- as most would percieve it to be either. But just like crooked law officials on the latest crime dramas it's not going to be -readily- apparent or out in the open if a city is corrupt or not. You have to rp and found out.

I don't see any issue with people playing alts. Like gorgometh said, lets not make this thread about adding more restrictions.

If anything, if you want to bring more evil back, you need to start lifting restrictions, for example, the fact that they can't go anywhere; ever; might be a good start. They might have something to do.

The rules allow for evil people to go places, unless their individual character is banned. Unless you're a shifter, then the banishment rules don't apply.

666WaysToHell wrote:

The rules allow for evil people to go places, unless their individual character is banned. Unless you're a shifter, then the banishment rules don't apply.

Groups of evil are automatically banned, and so many individuals as well, that it pretty much covers everyone who's not covertly evil and thus not actually going to do anything for years at a time.

Kind of a paradox, really, asking for more evil as good; but banning evil from being present in good/neutral RP.

It should also be noted that there is a big difference between 'playing alts' and playing out a story, before moving on. It's not really necessary to stick to one character for years and years. Play whatever you want to play, whenever you want to play it. It's a game. It's not going to be fun if you say to someone, 'Ok, you've made this character. Now you can't play anything else.'

Gobbledygook wrote:

It should also be noted that there is a big difference between 'playing alts' and playing out a story, before moving on. It's not really necessary to stick to one character for years and years. Play whatever you want to play, whenever you want to play it. It's a game. It's not going to be fun if you say to someone, 'Ok, you've made this character. Now you can't play anything else.'

^ This

. . .and the fact that some of us like playing Alt's and Substitute characters, not all of us want to be LeBron, some of us are happy being Ray Allen.

Needled247 wrote:

666WaysToHell wrote:

The rules allow for evil people to go places, unless their individual character is banned. Unless you're a shifter, then the banishment rules don't apply.

Groups of evil are automatically banned, and so many individuals as well, that it pretty much covers everyone who's not covertly evil and thus not actually going to do anything for years at a time.

The rules have been re-written. I could make a Cyricist or Banite and waltz through Kohlingen or Cordor so long as the character doesn't destroy his cover. It's Amia's rumour-mill and grape-vine that is why people can't get anywhere.

For reference: viewtopic.php?f=110&t=70891

666WaysToHell wrote:

Needled247 wrote:

666WaysToHell wrote:

The rules allow for evil people to go places, unless their individual character is banned. Unless you're a shifter, then the banishment rules don't apply.

Groups of evil are automatically banned, and so many individuals as well, that it pretty much covers everyone who's not covertly evil and thus not actually going to do anything for years at a time.

The rules have been re-written. I could make a Cyricist or Banite and waltz through Kohlingen or Cordor so long as the character doesn't destroy his cover. It's Amia's rumour-mill and grape-vine that is why people can't get anywhere.

Yep, my sharran recently visited Kohlingen, and has been in Cordor a number of times, too. I've also had my necromancer visit Kohlingen, just to see what all the fuss was about.

Some people aren't so lucky and are actually part of a recognized faction and people know who they are. >_>

The whole keeping secret about your identity basically destroys the whole point of the lack of overt evil though. Because you still can't do that in those places.

Being Evil on Amia

Who is online