Author Topic: Evil Characters.... (Read 857 times)

darkstorme · « **Reply #20 on:** July 28, 2006, 08:58:06 am »

Ahh, but the problem is that the PvP areas would have to be honour-based, since the whole server is PvP to make spellcasters think twice before blasting off with AoE spells. And then, if player-vs-player combat were sanctioned on a greater scale, the grievances posted would probably go through the roof.

In addition, there are established guilds, including the rebirth of the Arcane Alliance, that would fit your descriptions well, Eregion. I won't mention the various Thieves' Guilds, as they wouldn't appreciate it.

And without PvP progress, there's little non-rp that one "group" can do to another that wouldn't fall under "griefing". Stealthed/invisible tails on guild-based adventuring groups stealth-looting or cherrypicking kills? I can't imagine that would go over well. Now, trans-continental warfare and arranged battles, that might go over well - except that without DM balance, a pair of 20th level mages could easily eliminate dozens of lower-level opponents on each side before they'd ever have a chance to meet in combat. It would, certainly, be a managerial nightmare.

In addition, a character needn't be evil to want to fight another character. There are opposed good/neutral gods whose priests would, unchecked, probably welcome the chance to hurt each other a bit. If there were a system for subdual damage, I can think of quite a few people Kell would LOVE to sap (people who try to bring the watch down on a covert mission, for example.

). And certainly, I've seen spellcasters use non-damaging spells on characters they find annoying or have ideological differences with. So opening up the evil alignments (which, IMHO, require a gifted roleplayer to properly portray) is unnecessary if all you want is a reason for PvP.

However, "... things like fortress sieges, ambushes, and all that you can think of..." smacks highly of "eh?! Castle Raid =D", which, as was agreed, has no real place in the structure of Layonara. PvP, in a lethal, non-arena sense, if included, ought to be used as flavour, not introduced as a regular feature. Just my two coppers on the subject.

trapman · « **Reply #21 on:** July 28, 2006, 09:43:09 am »

I'm not exactly a PvP fan...I have played MMORPGS like EQ, WoW and SWG with very different PvP experiences in all of those...bottom line is I REALLY hate griefing...if there is something in this world that can make me mad is some immature knucklehead that can't accept to be beaten in good faith...and starts talking about my mother...etc...I mean, I literally push the off button on my comp as soon as I read something like that...SPECIALLY...if its a Role server.
But if its done between mature and responsible people (like everybody I have met here so far) with clearly defined rules ...it can be very funny ...it adds the adrenalyne factor hehe .

I don't know if its technicaly possible but one way to do it..could be...some sort of item that when used would flag you for PvP combat (changing the color of the name tag perhaps)and so it would enable you to attack or be attacked by the opposing faction. That way you know that IF you use the item ANYTHING goes...if you don't like PvP or just don't feel like it at the moment...well just don't "turn it on"

Just an idea...

Dorganath · « **Reply #22 on:** July 28, 2006, 09:45:36 am »

Quote

darkstorme - 7/28/2006 10:58 AM Ahh, And without PvP progress, there's little non-rp that one "group" can do to another that wouldn't fall under "griefing". Stealthed/invisible tails on guild-based adventuring groups stealth-looting or cherrypicking kills? I can't imagine that would go over well. Now, trans-continental warfare and arranged battles, that might go over well - except that without DM balance, a pair of 20th level mages could easily eliminate dozens of lower-level opponents on each side before they'd ever have a chance to meet in combat. It would, certainly, be a managerial nightmare.

First, go back and read what I wrote above.
To clarify further, the "stealth looting" is already against server rules and those caught doing it get disciplined or banned. "Cherrypicking" kills would not be permitted if we allowed this kind of thing.
Think about the Ft. Velensk Arena, but instead of one interior area, think about...for example...a dedicated field of battle. Scheduled and agreed battles. There would likely be different rules for death (as it is in Velensk) in such areas, so Soul Strands likely wouldn't e of issue. Any, and I mean any abuse or griefing as a result would be met with action from the GM Team, as would any faction vs. faction activity outside of sanctioned areas.. Too much abuse or too many problems, and the system would go. This of course is just a "for instance" but it is an example of how it could be done and still maintain Layonara in spirit. Trust me...collectively we have years of time and money invested in this place, and thousands of man-hours spent developing, updating and maintaining it. We wouldn't do anything to harm the place or the community, and if we inadvertently do harm, then we would correct it....quickly.
But as I said...IF we did this, it would not be a free-for-all, and would very much be contained and regulated.
I would point out that the Ft. Velensk arena has not destroyed the feel, flavor or spirit of Layonara, and people go there responsibly...and I'm not aware of a single grievance having been filed as a result.

darkstorme · « **Reply #23 on:** July 28, 2006, 10:01:09 am »

Sorry, Dorganath - I must not have been clear enough. I read the remainder of the thread before I posted, including your earlier post. My point was that while arena-style (ie, Fort Velensk coding) combat could be possible on a larger scale, it would blur the lines between PvP and non-PvP significantly, and would not permit the intrigues that the original poster seemed to be positing. I'm well aware of the Ft. Velensk success.

As for stealth looting and cherrypicking - my use of the phrase "I can't imagine that would go over well" referred to the fact that such activity IS against the rules.

The remainder of my comments were to do with the mechanics of such a large-battle Valensk-esque battle.. barring some clever scripting (which I'm sure is not at all beyond you, but possibly beyond your time constraints), you'd require DM supervision for all such combat to ensure that each side's high-level spellcasters/fighters didn't first focus on the lower-level opponents, strategically thinning the herd before turning on their matched opponents. In the arena, this is seldom a concern. Unfortunately, even if this IS balanced in favour of equivalent treatment for all levels, it will decried as unrealistic because the first thing a powerful spellcaster WOULD likely do is wipe away the enemy's shock troops so they wouldn't harry the key players during one-on-one combat.

It just strikes me as a nearly impossible thing to implement in a way that's both even-handed and sensible, unless level-spread constraints are introduced.

Anomas Analor Kamath · « **Reply #24 on:** July 28, 2006, 11:25:03 am »

I understand limits for evil and CN characters..
Now, a limitation that bothers me is pvp... wouldn't an agreement between both parts be enough for it to happen? I mean, what am I supposed to do, in the place of a ranger, if i see someopne just hacking the hell out of innocent animals without justification? Talk him out of it?

Weeblie · « **Reply #25 on:** July 28, 2006, 11:33:04 am »

Depends on the character. Mine would definitely try to talk the person out of it.

Oh, and... PvP is allowed with a DM watching, so if you play a more aggresive character, you could always try to send a message to the DM channel.

DeadHead Fred · « **Reply #26 on:** July 28, 2006, 12:47:26 pm »

I like the idea of factions working against each other, but I don't think that they have to be killing each other. After all, in the real world, there are many, many factions, yet very few of them are killing each other. All we really need is two (or more) groups working towards goals, such that the goals or the means conflict. Basically, you just have groups working against each other, but not necessarily trying to kill each other.

This, of course, would be much easier to run with GM support.

Some examples that pop into my head:
An NPC needs something recovered, but he only has limited funds for a reward (so that if everyone works together, they get less). He could ask several groups to find it and bring it back, with the reward going to the group that gets it. The other groups might get a small payment for their time, or they might not. This would also give opportunity for the less than honorable characters to betray their group and run off with the item and take the reward for themselves. Or a chance for those rogues with skill in picking pockets to remove the item from a group that has it (assuming it's something small).

A farmer is having trouble with some unknown assailants raiding his fields. Groups could investigate and attempt to take care of the perpetrators. The problem is, there are several different enemies it could be, with different clues given to each group, perhaps with the possible enemies slated towards the characters' dislikes (like favored enemies of rangers). Destroying the right enemies solves the problem. Attacking the wrong one leads to a strong response against the farm/whole town, with the blame directed at the offending group of characters.

Opposing factions doesn't mean that they must kill one another.

Anomas Analor Kamath · « **Reply #27 on:** July 28, 2006, 01:57:16 pm »

Weeblie, i've sent messages in the dm channels for some time now, and have never been answered.

This morning i was hunting badgers and there were two druids around. I wasnt with my companion, so they certainly didn't know i was a ranger. One of them sent a wall of fire trapping me inside, but i revealed myself and we talked peacefully, the other threatened me of death if i attacked his cubs again. In the meantime, more badgers spawned there, so I could have just attacked them, and it would be more than justifiable for him to kill me. I would see as a really bad rp if he kept threatening me after i've killed 20 badgers and would never mind dying by his hands if that meant the correct course...

Where i playied, the rule is that both sides need to agree on a to-death combat. So if a pk happens, and no one complains, it goes as normal. If one of them complains, but the other has a screenshot of him agreeing before combat [in the respective of a //tell there], nothings happens. If it had no rp reason and no agreement, it was a ban, plain and simple. If there was a reason but no agreement [like me killing those badgers but then saying 'no' to a death combat, something certainly ill-intended] the agressor [the one who said no] is punished by lack of rp. And it has gone all to well for years now... maybe you could try this here.

Acacea · « **Reply #28 on:** July 28, 2006, 02:11:08 pm »

Just go to search and type PvP to save the joy of answering another few times. It comes up all the time.

Weeblie · « **Reply #29 on:** July 28, 2006, 02:25:46 pm »

The rules about PvP have been here for quite a long time and I doubt they will be changed.

As for the example you gave... If I would see someone killing badgers and still do that, obviously hiding behind the PvP rules, I would simply leave. One can pick who one wants to RP-with, after all...

Anomas Analor Kamath · « **Reply #30 on:** July 28, 2006, 02:28:49 pm »

I know how it works, i'm not asking this.. i'm suggesting how it could.
In my view it's disappointingly limiting, and result in some akward[sp?] situations like threats that cannot be put to work and points that can't be defended. Ad the few problems it brings are easilly enough handled by the number of gms that exists here.

And about the giving up thing... it's a bit unmotivating, isn't it? A perfectly peaceful and happy and harmless place... weird.

Leanthar · « **Reply #31 on:** July 28, 2006, 02:30:35 pm »

We (the gm team) have a full plate, all of us. We do not waste our time with PvP/PK'ing as it does nothing but cause problems when it is not in a controlled environment. If you want PvP this server is not for you, pretty simple and straight foward. We have an arena for it if you wish to challenge somebody in that manner. Later on we may have an additional thing for PvP but not right now and even IF we do in the future it will be controlled.

Anomas Analor Kamath · « **Reply #32 on:** July 28, 2006, 03:25:24 pm »

I don't want a pvp server, but i do think such restricted pvp also restricts greatly rp and similarity to the chaos of life

Acacea · « **Reply #33 on:** July 28, 2006, 03:41:20 pm »

It's not a perfectly happy or peaceful place. Most people are simply capable of roleplaying conflict (even PvP) without actually, mechanically attacking one another. If you absolutely need to, go to the arena in Velensk and slaughter each other all you want, or get GM supervision.

Leanthar · « **Reply #34 on:** July 28, 2006, 03:51:19 pm »

".... but i do think such restricted pvp also restricts greatly rp and similarity to the chaos of life...."

Heard that one a few dozen times in the last 4.5 years.

Nook · « **Reply #35 on:** July 28, 2006, 08:32:08 pm »

Ok, here's my 2 1/2 dollars worth of thought...

1) Evil Characters...Ok, I've worked it over in my head to make this short...You can't start out as one. I've been playing D&D for 20 years and with the exception of 1 time, have always been chaotic N. If these alignments were allowed right off the bat, I would say that asking and/or tell of one's alignment be a bannable offence (i.e. "Hi, I'm 'so-n-so' and LG, what alignment are you?) Even evil folk usually have sense enough to act good when the time calls for it. No one knows what truely lurks in the hearts of men (except the Shadow, he knows).
2) PvP, etc....To those on the GM team...the reason why this question is raised, I think, is because with Blood gone, those who play here don't know what could come next. I know you all have things planned, this is just a question and idea that floated to the top of our heads under the circumstances. Same with faction v. facton. One of those "The bad guys are dead, now can some of us be the bad guy?" thoughts. Nothing to dwell over, we know that ya'll have something up your sleeves.

Simply put, the above is possible, but only with well documented RPing. I may have played a CN character for years, but I wouldn't expect a person new to the group to be allowed to have it until it was proven that they could play it properly. CN can mean crazy or bi-polar, which is the same, but played very different.
I also saw where someone said "no soul strand lost in a PvP kill...why? A death is a death is a death. If people agree to fight to the death, and get a strand taken, that's part of the gamble...In a game mess up, I can understand the arguement, but if you roll a natural 1 and end up lopping your own head off and get a strand taken, that was just the roll of the dice (yeah, It's happened to me before in D&D.)
Well, I'm done with my rant.

Anomas Analor Kamath · « **Reply #36 on:** July 28, 2006, 10:10:04 pm »

It's not about evil guys... the possibility of Pvp is exactly to exclude the need for a evil guy. People get attacked, spanked, punched, robbed, raped, ripped everyday in real life. In a medieval age enviroment, law enforcement was loose and crime was even more common. Raiders, road-criminals and fugitives give depth and density to a scenary, and none of this is possible without Pvp... Including different races like goblins and bugbears roaming human streets? That was supposed to be a bloodshed.

It's not, for obvious reasons, funny to be robbed in a road or rapped in a dark corner of the street, but in a roleplay game, this all give traumas, spread some healthy hatred and anger throughout the population... it seeds base for more serious roleplaying...

Of course it must be kept to a minimum, but to nullify this... it's... weird.

lonnarin · « **Reply #37 on:** July 28, 2006, 10:29:50 pm »

"This morning i was hunting badgers and there were two druids around. I wasnt with my companion, so they certainly didn't know i was a ranger. One of them sent a wall of fire trapping me inside, but i revealed myself and we talked peacefully, the other threatened me of death if i attacked his cubs again. In the meantime, more badgers spawned there, so I could have just attacked them, and it would be more than justifiable for him to kill me. I would see as a really bad rp if he kept threatening me after i've killed 20 badgers and would never mind dying by his hands if that meant the correct course... "

Just wondering... who was it that cast wall of fire on you and threatened you with death for daring to hunt badgers? That druid was flagrantly abusing the PVP rules, as any sane person seeing a crazed spellcaster trying to set them on fire would be morally allowed to kill such a person even as Lawful Good.

Anomas Analor Kamath · « **Reply #38 on:** July 28, 2006, 10:47:03 pm »

He didn't cast it on ME, he trapped me in a place with it. And frankly, that was the most serious rp he could have shown...

Dorganath · « **Reply #39 on:** July 29, 2006, 06:15:12 am »

Quote

Anomas Analor Kamath - 7/29/2006 12:10 AM
It's not, for obvious reasons, funny to be robbed in a road or rapped in a dark corner of the street, but in a roleplay game, this all give traumas, spread some healthy hatred and anger throughout the population... it seeds base for more serious roleplaying... Of course it must be kept to a minimum, but to nullify this... it's... weird.

Uh...let's be clear about something....
Robery/theft from other players is against server rules and is a bannable offense.
Rape...do I even have to say this? Raping another character...regardless of player consent, regardless of how one might justify it through RP, character development or whatever...Raping another character is against server rules and is a bannable offense. In addition, it is completely contrary to the spirit and environment we have here in Layonara. It's a sure way to get thrown out of here permanently. There is NO justification for this. Don't even bother trying to come up with one.