PlaneShift
Gameplay => Guilds Forum => Topic started by: buddha on November 07, 2005, 07:35:01 am
-
So who is it? We have several guilds that claim to be evil.
Does anyone have any actual, in-game experience with an evil guild? I mean, really. What is the most evil act anyone has ever seen, heard of, or committed in PS?
-
/me extends his hand in greeting.
-
Is kicking groffels considered bad? If so the Dark Empire might take the title pretty soon :P
Seriously though, really evil guild won\'t take attention on themselves, but rather plan and plan and plan and attack when no one expects it, taking it all.
Guilds that show off with how evil they are, are more like shrimps and could be called stupid evil more than anything else. Their actions are no \"badder\" than those of guilds where members randomly attack other people.
So there\'s no real point in asking. If some guild is really evil and has at least a bit of thinking ability, their \"evilness\" won\'t be really known.
-
Is kicking groffels considered bad? If so the Dark Empire might take the title pretty soon :P
Seriously though, really evil guild won\'t take attention on themselves, but rather plan and plan and plan and attack when no one expects it, taking it all.
Guilds that show off with how evil they are, are more like shrimps and could be called stupid evil more than anything else. Their actions are no \"badder\" than those of guilds where members randomly attack other people.
So there\'s no real point in asking. If some guild is really evil and has at least a bit of thinking ability, their \"evilness\" won\'t be really known.
Wise, wise words.
What is the most evil act anyone has ever seen, heard of, or committed in PS?
In character or out of Character? I could list alot, but it serves little purpose.
Though you could try speaking to to anyone who has fought am-heh, if you want some history.
-
I fought Amheh when I was but a noob. Over and over and over again. And then over again. Killed me good he did. Ah, to feel alive once more....
-
Putting aside Am-Heh and his pathetic group (whatever it was called), which never did anything to really shake the world of Yliakum,
Causing Shadowhand (one of the more respected guilds) to disband was pretty bad. But then again I believe the one who did it was a member of Mirth... Quite an irony, really.
-
The Cabali were very active in their time and caused more mischief than I can recall any other guild did.
Anyway, they\'re dead now, so that means they weren\'t that bright.
OOC: We have three guilds that claim to be evil. From this guilds only two are established in-game. However we\'re all doing our things and I don\'t really think we can measure evilness.
-
Just a grammar question: I learned \"bad - worse - worst\"; but \"{more|most} evil\" shall hit the point instead, it seems to me.
-
Hmmm, the disbanding of Shadowhand, ... Well heard a quite nice bit about why and how, ... didnt remember any names though.
-
ah the story of davis....a man with many faces....
to put it perspective first... Shadowhand was a guild for rogues and spy\'s only the leader and the head 2 members where known to be members in the guild all other members where hidden from the public eye and the members themselfs couldent tell others. ironically the guild at the time had been though a rough time with trust issues...mainly stemming from a dwarf named tranor who had joined shadowhand some time ago then after a while....forgot he was in the guild...then started his own guild. this caused an argument about a betraying member who dident inform them he was leaving and so on...
so then in shadowhand there is a member called shadowmancer there was also a guy in mirth called davis and there was also a guy in the cabal whos name began with a b but for the life of me i cant remember..... anyways it came out that all them people was the same person...the leader of shadowhand had trusted shadowmancer so finding out that he was many people was the straw that broke the camels back...crashed the guild n so forth.... i\'ve always felt slightly guilty for it since i was the one who told errion the link between em :x
-
Hey Sep,
now THAT\'S the kind of evil I\'m interested in. I know everyone wants to be mysterious about their \"evilness\", but the actual outlets in the game are fairly limited. You can\'t assassinate, you can\'t steal, you can\'t strongarm, none of the classic mafioso techniques. There aren\'t even any laws to break. This limits it to political action which cause strife amongst other players. However, I haven\'t seen must evidence of this happening.
But the idea of playing several characters and using that information against various guilds is cheating. What sort of wickedness can you commit completely within the physics of the world? I mean, calling yourself \"evil\" because you duel is kind of lame. People have to agree to duel.
For that matter, what kind of heroism can you commit within the physics of this world?
Ligh: Your English is correct. The term \"baddest of the bad\" is colloquial.
-
Personally im on the notion that a real evil person dosent think there evil and most certainly dont go around telling everyone \"im evil!!!11\" a real evil player is one that lets his/her actions speak for them.
-
Sep, I completely agree with you on a general level. However, I\'m interested to know how this is playing out in the game. Can you really be evil in game? Can you really be good? That\'s why I asked for examples.
-
of course not the game is far too restricting to do anything like that. thats why the ps world has always had so many guilds even when the game was a glorified chat room. its all down to the politics and double backstabbing and all the rest that happens on the forums and by PM that what defines the player.
-
Originally posted by seperot
Personally im on the notion that a real evil person dosent think there evil and most certainly dont go around telling everyone \"im evil!!!11\" a real evil player is one that lets his/her actions speak for them.
If a person willfully does evil and calls it evil, then he simply has a different definition of evil.
Perhaps he sees good and evil as mere social constructions, and there are greater truths and values in the world to define things by. Power, order, truth, and happiness measure things in ways \"good and evil\" do not.
He might see an action as good which others see as evil, but he adopts the terminology of others for the sake of convenience.
He might see evil acts as useful in the pursuit of good.
He might be tormented, and thus does evil knowing it is evil because he is of two minds.
There are many possibilities.
-
Originally posted by buddha
Hey Sep,
now THAT\'S the kind of evil I\'m interested in.
Yeah, but like I said, it\'s irony.
Because even though that\'s probably the most \"evil\" thing that happened in PS up to day, still the person who did it was originally member of Mirth. The most happy and all around goody good guild in the realm.
The \"evilness\" of this act wasn\'t caused by any specific guild, but rather by a single person.
Then again, I might be wrong, seeing as Mirth was rather positive about spying, I think.
The guild which was considered the most good guild in the realm, causing the greatest harm up to day? Briliant.
-
Is bringing down an evil guild evil? Shadowhand was a rogue guild and (purely in a RP way, as I\'m friends with Yann) wouldn\'t getting rid of it benefit everyone else? I was never really sure if he was Cabal or Mirth.
In any case, Davis was one of the last people who actually made these boards interesting..
-
Well it depends if Shadowhand was really evil.
If they did spy on other guilds out of personal goals, then act of spying back (and in the end destruction) could be considered as an act of defense (However I don\'t see logic in something like that, as there would be absolutely no gain in doing so for them. I\'d rather expect offering services to other guilds, in which case it\'s more of neutral).
But rogues and spies could have multiple functions, some of which would be actually good (or rather lawful). For example see Majesty game.
In the end I don\'t know what was happening in there. Seperot most likely does.
-
Actually, to my perspective there aren\'t any evil guilds. Sending spies into other guilds is just typical war tactics, not evil...
Now evil, would be killing, mass murder, destruction, chaos, not little conflicts between two groups of idiots...>.>
-
Yes, because killing, mass murder, destruction and chaos can\'t be considered to be war tactics... Right...
-
Well, it could be a move on all of Yliakum from evil people...or just something OOC related :|
My point is, that the evil guilds are nothing but talk, and the others simply have a grudge against another guild, but do nothing to people outside of that guild...So, the evil ones would be considered the most known people (not the Dark Empire, still mostly talk about some princess)
-
Originally posted by Suno_Regin
So, the evil ones would be considered the most known people
\"So\"?
But you didn\'t give any reason for this sentence to be true. Please elaborate.
-
Forget it...You need to read the rest of it, not just one line -_-
(Don\'t say you did, I explained everything I needed to)
-
Speak about me behind my back do you Seperot? :P Let us not forget who was the cause of my entering of Shadowhand...
I regret what I did now though because i grew rather fond of Errion as a friend. Don\'t do evil things, or else innocent kittens will die, thanks for ur time. :D
-
Originally posted by Suno_Regin
Forget it...You need to read the rest of it, not just one line -_-
(Don\'t say you did, I explained everything I needed to)
What the hell?
Saying that evil guilds are \"all talk\" is why the most known ones are the evil ones, doesn\'t make a logical sense. Get some education...
I asked for elaborating, not making a pointless post. You explained nothing.
-
Putting aside Am-Heh and his pathetic group (whatever it was called), which never did anything to really shake the world of Yliakum
I think the fact you dont even know what they are called shows you are completly ignorant of the situation, and perhaps you should heed your own words and realise that just because you havnt heard about it, doesnt mean it didnt happen. After all, \"If some guild is really evil and has at least a bit of thinking ability, their \"evilness\" won\'t be really known.\", to quote yourself.
My point is, that the evil guilds are nothing but talk,
As opposed to whom, exactly? Its funny watching people talk about evil guilds doing nothing, because the same applies to good guilds, and pretty much most guilds here: How many guilds can you really say have acheived much at all? Apart from a very small selection who have set themselves one task and done it well (Explorers, Community of Vaalnor), there is very little action with guilds as a whole. How many \'good\' guilds have done a whole lot of \'good\' things? I would return the comment, and say you are nothing but talk, but since you are so poor at it I think It would insult those people who are nothing but talk, for at least they do it well.
-
Originally posted by ramlambmoo
Putting aside Am-Heh and his pathetic group (whatever it was called), which never did anything to really shake the world of Yliakum
I think the fact you dont even know what they are called shows you are completly ignorant of the situation, and perhaps you should heed your own words and realise that just because you havnt heard about it, doesnt mean it didnt happen. After all, \"If some guild is really evil and has at least a bit of thinking ability, their \"evilness\" won\'t be really known.\", to quote yourself.
That would be true if not for the fact that Am-Heh was bragging about how evil he is, so pretty much was completely opposed to \"If some guild is really evil and has at least a bit of thinking ability, their \"evilness\" won\'t be really known.\"
Actually, funny how you agreed to that and yet defend his guild as a properly evil guild... I believe that\'s called \"bias\".
My point is despise him bragging about the evilness, Yliakum wasn\'t shook by anything done by him.
\"and realise that just because you havnt heard about it, doesnt mean it didnt happen.\"
If I can\'t realise something happened, that means it didn\'t shook the Yliakum. I think that\'s logical?
Much unlike the Shadowhand case, which caused lots and lots of fighting between groups of people.
And I won\'t bother to remember the name, (Deus-ex or whatever) because it didn\'t really strike me as a proper name and the whole guild was behaving like a complete spoof of evil guilds.
Just for the sheer enjoyment of role-playing I choose to ignore guilds which don\'t seem to be seriously thought of.
Edit: If my char is going to fear about the shadows being thrown upon Yliakum, it\'ll be because of guilds like Dark Empire, which keep the role-playing standard and thus give me a role-playing reason to fear about their influence.
Guilds like Deus Ex, so guilds which:
Constantly brag about how evil they are,
Choose a name that wouldn\'t make any sense in the culture of Yliakum, solely for the purpose of sounding cool,
Show a lot of power-leveling behaviour,
Have a leader who was known for some trolling behaviour,
Aren\'t something that I\'d choose my char to worry about.
I also don\'t see how not remembering name of a guild which chooses some dumb name can be called ignorance. I believe trying to remember every single absurd someone comes up with is a sheer idiocy, actually. I mostly remember guilds for their behaviour, not their names. And Deus ex so far appeared to me as a band of clowns.
-
Originally posted by Tranor
Speak about me behind my back do you Seperot? :P Let us not forget who was the cause of my entering of Shadowhand...
I regret what I did now though because i grew rather fond of Errion as a friend. Don\'t do evil things, or else innocent kittens will die, thanks for ur time. :D
*Stabs tranor in the back, throws him into a river then blows up the river*
>.>
Quiet you!
*Makes himself scares before people start putting 3 and 7 together....*
-
Previously posted by buddha:
Can you really be evil in game? Can you really be good? That\'s why I asked for examples.
Currently we can\'t count on actions that require the unwilling interaction of another. This, of course, makes it quite hard to be evil using the game\'s current system; most people don\'t go around accepting behaviours that are morally wrong.
Previously posted by Suno_Regin:
My point is, that the evil guilds are nothing but talk
You\'re almost right, in my opinion. Seeing that we can\'t use most of the current game system, we must count on the vehicle that can carry out the path we\'ve chosen for our character: Speech.
Fortunely speech is an important part of roleplaying, and so we enjoy roleplaying with people who willingly accept our evil, while we accept their good.
Despite the systems, speech will always be the most important in roleplaying. The characters and the players have to rely on communication so that they can roleplay together. There\'s little rational interaction without communication.
Previously posted by Suno_Regin:
Actually, to my perspective there aren\'t any evil guilds.
I\'ll give you my opinion then, since you\'ve shared yours. Evil isn\'t just limited to actions. Someone who wishes to cause misfortune to others (directly or indirectly) but has to wait for an oppurtunity is still being evil (seeing that this is a morally wrong behaviour.) I guess that\'s one of the reasons people get arrested by attempting murder, even though they didn\'t get to kill anyone.
Anyway, answering buddha\'s question: yes. You can be evil and good. However the evil alignment is limited by the current system.
How to be evil you ask? Plot, ask someone from a good guild (obviously considering that every aligned guild is a roleplay guild) to enter a war with you, use your speech to intimidate or (mis)lead people, avoid from helping others, laugh and point your finger to the less fortunate, etc.
As long as you\'re roleplaying and doing a good job at it, I think you\'ll have plenty of fun.
-
Actually, to what I\'ve seen so far, the only evil guilds are the ones who annoy people. Remember Jimmik? Killed, annoyed, got banned by GM\'s. Evil is mostly -limited- to mere talk, because most actions result in a broken OOC rule and a ban. If things were a little more implimented and understood with how far rules go, it could actually carry out (like what Sangwa said) but if you can\'t make a move until later, theres actually a halted take-over IC, and leaves confusion.
(I don\'t know what happened to Jimmik actually, but that was just an example)
An evil guild, is one that actually breaks things apart piece-by-piece (Odessa seems to be doing a good job, since shes actually made plans for an attack on Yliakum, the Dark Empire however, just talks about some lady that they worship...) and -battle- with the ones trying to protect Yliakum. They try to destroy the peace, and make it chaotic. Once again, the Dark Empire claims world domination, though I have not seen any action other then Jimmik\'s killing, which is really more of PKing than an IC take-over...
(I\'m not flaming DE, but if its going to claim to be evil, it needs to show it, not just act it out with evil laughs and dark colors)
-
Originally posted by Suno_Regin
(I\'m not flaming DE, but if its going to claim to be evil, it needs to show it, not just act it out with evil laughs and dark colors)
Dark Empire doesn\'t need to claim to be evil. It is what it is. And that\'s enough.
-
Well like Sangwa said, they can\'t do anything right now because none of the right skills are implimented. But if they IC talk to people normally, in a guild called the Dark Empire, they would be expected to make a move by now on Yliakum. Instead, people think it is just a name, but when the things are implimented, which would have worked just as well acted out before they were released (ex. spying, hiding in shadows, etc.) the Dark Empire will attack, and people will start to lose friends (something that would fit IC with this sudden uprising anyway, since the guild has been around for so long and is only attacking so much later in the future)
-
Erm, I don\'t know how it is for the rest of people, but I treat Dark Empire as the in-game threat. I don\'t care what they do with the game system. As long as they role-play it well (read: behave as it should be expected from a guild which wants to conquer as much as possible and yet not have every single guild on their backs), then just for that my character should consider them to be something to worry about.
And what are the claims, doesn\'t matter.
-
Hmm...Alright, but I would like them to act it out and show a little action, because when they don\'t do anything and only act it out or talk about it, they aren\'t really showing that they -did- it
-
Draklar, open minded as usual I see. :-D
Anyway, being annoying does not make you evil. It makes you annoying. I\'ve met tonnes of characters in game who identify as true good, yet are extremely annoying.
I think when judging a guild, you also have to keep in mind their philosophy. The Dark Empire, Deus ex Trucido, Twin Blades of Arete, and the Minions are all evil guilds, but in their day (or to this day) they had major philisophical differences. The Dark Empire seeks to use policy and organization to extert its will over society. Deus ex Trucido wished only to bring a constant state of pain, suffering, and misery to the world. Twin Blades of Arete sought personal perfection at any cost. Minions were a collection of like-minded people who valued comradery. There have been many more.
To me personally, what they\'ve actually done is less interesting than their mandate. If you don\'t have a well thought out personal philosophy, you\'re simply stumbling in the dark. It\'s what gives a character character.
There\'s layers to this thing too though. Necromancers for instance may see themselves as serving the cause of Good if they justify what they do by saying they rescue people from Oblivion, or they see living death as more ideal than being alive, or some such. An assassin might be considered evil by any measure if he murders innocent people, but he or she might justify it by saying he or she recognizes that the acts are evil, yet they have to be done because of some greater cause or purpose.
-
I, personally, do not play an evil character. I would like to play an opportunist, but that requires actual strife in the game to capitalise on. That, to my knowledge, does not currently exist. There is no good vs. evil drama really playing out that I see. A lot of PKing, but that\'s kind of boring.
Hopefully, there will be a good way to be evil soon, so that people like me can make some money. At that point, I will likely try to resurrect the Beggar\'s Guild, which never got off the ground.
-
Originally posted by buddha
I, personally, do not play an evil character. I would like to play an opportunist, but that requires actual strife in the game to capitalise on. That, to my knowledge, does not currently exist. There is no good vs. evil drama really playing out that I see. A lot of PKing, but that\'s kind of boring.
Hopefully, there will be a good way to be evil soon, so that people like me can make some money. At that point, I will likely try to resurrect the Beggar\'s Guild, which never got off the ground.
Unfortunately, a lot of people here see any sort of strife as \"anti-RP\". I don\'t know what Talad\'s attitude is.
-
The simplest answer to your question, true midnless evil wouldn\'t be \"rp\" and everyone would hate them for being such \"n00bs\"...
-
Originally posted by Efflixi Aduro
The simplest answer to your question, true midnless evil wouldn\'t be \"rp\" and everyone would hate them for being such \"n00bs\"...
I feel tempted to include such character in one of my stories, just to show how much of noobs to role-playing you people are, thinking one could mistake someone who only role-plays (and does it as it should be done) mindless evil character with someone who is going ooc\'ly noobish or such :P
-
Originally posted by Efflixi Aduro
The simplest answer to your question, true midnless evil wouldn\'t be \"rp\" and everyone would hate them for being such \"n00bs\"...
That\'s a silly thing to say. There\'s a difference between being annoying or juvenile and being \"evil\".
-
There is no good vs. evil drama really playing out that I see. A lot of PKing, but that\'s kind of boring.
This is why I\'ve tried doing a meeting wih those who control the evil guilds. I was thinking we would organize things within ourselves and then speak with the Good side, to begin an interesting plot. However my client messed up and is still messed up and so I haven\'t been able to contact the other guild leaders...
Also one of the issues that incapacitates a healthy interaction between good and evil is the lack of evil players. I\'m also trying to get this changed with the help of the other guild leaders.
I don\'t consider the fact that some people see strife as anti-RP a problem though. They have no in-game character (presence) and as such they are to be ignored.
I understand your opinion and, should you care Suno, I\'m trying to make things more enjoyable for both of us. But it\'ll take time.
-
need more active evil characters , most of the more actives cahracters are just playing for power-leveling ...
-
I have had some experiences where people cannot divorce thier IC identity from their OOC identity. I mean, if I was the head of a large evil guild (like the Dark Empire) I would instantly try to OOC contact the head of the good guild and try to get things started. Agreements to be at war with each other help everyone out, but I don\'t think this is happening. I think that is one of the major differences between a \"n00b\" and good role-player, but so often people take these things so seriously.
Sangwa, are their rumblings of a good war coming? Is that what you mean?
On the other hand, just deciding that Guilds A and B are at war will only sustain for so long. I mean, they really have to inflict damage on each other somehow in order to get the juices flowing. PKing is not so effective, as everyone respawns in a few moments. If mining is still profitable, maybe we can get a war started over who gets to mine. The winner actually makes money. People not in a guild are mostly unaffected, but those involved in the war get to actually duke it out.
Hell, even if a gang of ruffians decided to harass the people near the mine, we\'d get something going...
EDIT: Here\'s another idea: start to harass the newbies. Now, before anyone says this is OOC, I beg to differ. Grifters have existed in every society, playing on the naive. Start standing at the city gates and claim there is a tax to leave the city. You\'ll make some money and you\'ll piss off the \"good\" guilds enough to actually organize and mobilize.
-
I would like to see a real war between the good and bad players myself it would be fun untill they agree on \"peace\".
-
Umm, if I may ask... What exactly is the point of such war?
-
Originally posted by Draklar
Umm, if I may ask... What exactly is the point of such war?
To win.
Duh. :baby:
-
To have fun, theres nothing to do recently :(
-
Originally posted by yayoo
To have fun, theres nothing to do recently :(
I should make myself more clear :P
I asked for a role-playing reason.
-
The evil people are in it to take over the world and the good people are in it to stop them.Something like that.
-
And what happens with the neutral people? They just watch the war without making any attempt to stop the evil ones from enslaving them? I think naturally it is the neutrals who defend from evil ones taking over.
Like in LOTR, forces such as Gondor were rather neutral...
-
But why not join the Evil ones if they seem in be winning?Anyway that just adds to the experiance of a real war.
-
Originally posted by yayoo
But why not join the Evil ones if they seem in be winning?Anyway that just adds to the experiance of a real war.
Because they can\'t be trusted.
Because your friends will suffer.
Because you don\'t feel like fighting those who try to protect you.
Because your loved ones will turn away from you.
Because of connections with government (belonging to a city or such).
Because you don\'t want to see your homelands enslaved.
-
What if you friends and loved ones went and joined the Evil side with you?And if you were givein land and money to join the Evil side, then I don\'t see a reason not to.
-
Originally posted by yayoo
And if you were givein land and money to join the Evil side, then I don\'t see a reason not to.
I already said they cannot be trusted. They wouldn\'t have problems with throwing you into dungeons after they win the war.
And honestly, I can\'t picture characters like Nilaya or Karyuu joining the dark side. In same way I can\'t picture enough of neutral/good characters joining the dark side for care for friends and loved ones to not be the issue.
And I forgot to mention:
Because of anti-evil propaganda.
-
Personally I think saying you neutral is saying you are good.To be truely neutral would mean if you saw someone doing something bad to someone else you wouldn\'t do anything to help the victim but that would be doing something bad wouldn\'t it?But if you helped this person that means you would be doing something good.So I basically think there are no neutral people only good ones,really good ones and evil ones.
-
A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn\'t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or order vs. chaos. She thinks of good as better than evil - after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she\'s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
And that\'s all. Neutral might do both good and evil things, but unlike a good aligned character, it might decide not to help someone if it might cause it some harm. Simply doesn\'t feel a moral must to help someone.
Edit: Wrong quote.
True Neutrals avoid siding with any of the extremes. But there\'s too much of good-evil decisions to say true neutral won\'t make any of them. It simply does just about same number for both.
Also mercenaries who are true neutral would side with evil ones. But that\'s one of the exceptions...
-
Originally posted by Bebel
need more active evil characters , most of the more actives cahracters are just playing for power-leveling ...
I think there are a lot of characters, both good and evil, who are operating from behind the scenes.
Originally posted by buddha
Start standing at the city gates and claim there is a tax to leave the city. You\'ll make some money and you\'ll piss off the \"good\" guilds enough to actually organize and mobilize.
Without open PVP, this can never be a reality.
Originally posted by Draklar
She thinks of good as better than evil - after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she\'s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
This is not exactly true. A neutral character believes that \"good\" is more convenient than evil, but not necessarily better. It\'s a fine but important distinction.
Originally posted by Draklar
True Neutrals avoid siding with any of the extremes.
Again, not exactly true. Take Ares from Greek mythology for instance, who was \'known\' to change sides in a battle if the side he was fighting with began to win.
Originally posted by buddha
I have had some experiences where people cannot divorce thier IC identity from their OOC identity.
Yup. I\'ve been both guilty of this and a victim of this. For instance, my in-game character has an undieing grudge against the Dragon Council due to certain events. However, the RP aspect of it spread to the forums in a way which seemed OOC. As a result in part, the character recieved a banning for OOC reasons.
There are mediums which are clearly IC and mediums which are clearly OOC. It is very problematic when those spheres cross.
-
Originally posted by zanzibar
Originally posted by Draklar
She thinks of good as better than evil - after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she\'s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
This is not exactly true. A neutral character believes that \"good\" is more convenient than evil, but not necessarily better. It\'s a fine but important distinction.
Well I surely am not good-aligned irl, but I highly respect people who do good things and despise those who make mostly evil ones...
Think neutral wouldn\'t categorise into \"better\" and \"worse\" people like Mother Teresa and Hitler? ;)
Originally posted by zanzibar
Originally posted by Draklar
True Neutrals avoid siding with any of the extremes.
Again, not exactly true. Take Ares from Greek mythology for instance, who was \'known\' to change sides in a battle if the side he was fighting with began to win.
Yeah, that\'s right. But that\'s what I meant when saying about the exceptions. For the most part true neutral would feel better if they didn\'t have to bother with such wars at all.
Although, I can\'t recall human war struggles between good and evil in the greek mythology... Rather wars between nations.
-
There\'s a difference between being neutral and being apathetic. There was a guild at one point with Kjeld in its name dedicated to maintaining the ballance between light and dark, good and bad. They might choose not to help in a given situation, not because they don\'t care or because they see it as a good thing, but because they see it as necessary or natural.
-
Why apathetic?
Not having personal need of joining struggle between good and evil isn\'t being apathetic...
-
I mean, if I was the head of a large evil guild (like the Dark Empire) I would instantly try to OOC contact the head of the good guild and try to get things started
If you were head of the Dark Empire (and if you possessed a sense of reason) you wouldn\'t instantly try to OOC contact the head of the good guild to try and get things started because you would notice you have a small number of Soldiers.
Without at least 4 or 5 Soldiers there is no way the Dark Empire can start a war, in character. I have and am trying to change this, by asking everyone I deem worthy if they\'re interested. Most of the times people are either bent on freelancing or on joining some neutral or good guild, like Dragon Council and The Chosen Few.
I would love to be able to do more for this cause, but my client has stopped working. Linux updates are always ugly monsters.
-
[/QUOTE]I should make myself more clear :P
I asked for a role-playing reason.
[/QUOTE]
What about this reason , for fun :
http://www.planeshift3d.com/wbboard/thread.php?threadid=20321&boardid=15&styleid=3&sid=bb3127be50b0a34f0921b92ed44ca775
or other reason : claim a territory (for hunt, mining, training ...) in Ydlaa or in the wild or in ojaveda (everywhere)
GUilds could fixe some rules (depending of their alignement, or make free, payement, if restricted must accept all challenge in the territory)
My idea to make this world more enjoyable
(sry my bad english again)
-
It\'s true that I possess only the most anemic sense of reason when it comes to role-playing.
I disagree that you can\'t collect taxes or take over an area without PvP. Being annoying and harassing can be very effective. It\'s true you can\'t enforce it, but if you insist on following people or challenging them to duels, you will make your presence felt. With this, any guild could claim a territory.
As for only having a few soldiers, this is a problem. But, death is pretty cheap right now. If you have the funding to get good stuff for your soldiers, you could probably do fine for a while.
-
Originally posted by buddha
Being annoying and harassing can be very effective.
And very bannable.
-
Yes, that is something I find very frustrating. I mean, there are annoying and harassing people in this world. As long as you are IC, why do people get banned? I find that, well, annoying and harassing.
EDIT: This seems to come down to the ideal that everyone is a hero or a villain. Trying to play something else is frowned upon. For a while, if you went to the tavern, people sat around trying to be the \"coolest\" by not talking or only threatening those about them. B-O-R-I-N-G. Where is the local color?
-
Very few people are actually in-character when they insist on being annoying and constantly challenging others to duels. I haven\'t heard of a scenario which had a real IC \"annoying\" persona banned, kicked, warned, etc., by any GM. Of course I could be missing things, but if someone is truly trying to roleplay a less-than-liked character and gets warned about it, they\'ve every right to complain.
-
could we play and ignore who is not IC ? just considere them as a \"population\" and play as we \'d like to.
-
Unless someone is being severely disruptive of RP in an OOC manner, I don\'t see why ignoring OOCers would be impossible ;)
-
Originally posted by Karyuu
Very few people are actually in-character when they insist on being annoying and constantly challenging others to duels. I haven\'t heard of a scenario which had a real IC \"annoying\" persona banned, kicked, warned, etc., by any GM.
/me raises his hand.
Whether a person is IC or OOC is highly subjective at times.
Originally posted by Bebel
could we play and ignore who is not IC ? just considere them as a \"population\" and play as we \'d like to.
It\'s a role-playing game......
-
Originally posted by zanzibar
/me raises his hand.
Whether a person is IC or OOC is highly subjective at times.
Very true, and if there are doubts you could always contact the other party using /tells and ask for clarification.
-
Also if you fell for whotever reson you dont want enything to do with the person, you have a option to ignore them in game by typing /add_ignore then add name, that way they do not ruien your enjoyment of the game. :))
-
Then it\'s settled, who\'s going to make the first street gang?
-
/tell seems completely OOC, how could you talk to someone from Hydlaa all the way to the Ojaveda Hills?
-
LOL that\' s true , they have mobile ...
-
Originally posted by r.guppy
Also if you fell for whotever reson you dont want enything to do with the person, you have a option to ignore them in game by typing /add_ignore then add name, that way they do not ruien your enjoyment of the game. :))
Very true, as you now know. Why put up with the OOC rudeness of others when you don\'t have to. Right, Janner?
Anyway, if tells weren\'t in the game, I think things would be pretty lonely. I like chatting with people, IC and OOC, while doing other things. The alternative would be to be alone when you do anything interesting unless you travel in groups, but that takes a lot of organization, and with people signing on at off at different times it just wouldn\'t be fun. The one RP advantage I can see is that for meetings, you would actually have to be together in the same room. And if someone saw it, they\'d know that you\'re all in cahoots with one another.
Of course, there\'s not much in the game to make secret meetings worth while, nor is there anything to make finding a secret meeting worth-while.
-
Finally i get peace and can get on with the game thanks :D
Quote:
Originally posted by r.guppy
Also if you fell for whatever resin you daunt want anything to do with the person, you have a option to ignore them in game by typing /add_ignore then add name, that way they do not ruin your enjoyment of the game.
Very true, as you now know. Why put up with the OOC rudeness of others when you don\'t have to. Right, Janner?
Anyway, if tells weren\'t in the game, I think things would be pretty lonely. I like chatting with people, IC and OOC, while doing other things. The alternative would be to be alone when you do anything interesting unless you travel in groups, but that takes a lot of organization, and with people signing on at off at different times it just wouldn\'t be fun. The one RP advantage I can see is that for meetings, you would actually have to be together in the same room. And if someone saw it, they\'d know that you\'re all in cahoots with one another.
Of course, there\'s not much in the game to make secret meetings worth while, nor is there anything to make finding a secret meeting worth-while.
You named me in game by my real name now you name in here, i feel i am entitled to reply, so hahahahahaha, and calling you a fool, and saying you are funny, and saying NO, to your demands to no were players are getting the thing you so desire makes me a idiot, Grow up. :D
(http://img492.imageshack.us/img492/2691/shot031mw.th.jpg) (http://img492.imageshack.us/my.php?image=shot031mw.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Suno_Regin
/tell seems completely OOC, how could you talk to someone from Hydlaa all the way to the Ojaveda Hills?
Suno, /tells are OOC unless you roleplay telepathy or whispers :)
-
Originally posted by zanzibar
Originally posted by Bebel
could we play and ignore who is not IC ? just considere them as a \"population\" and play as we \'d like to.
It\'s a role-playing game......
Well yeah, that\'s the point. Ignoring people who are disruptive for role-playing. Treating someone as just background \"population\" is a good way to handle things. For the most part someone who stays ooc, doesn\'t even exist in the reality of Yliakum. Or simply walks around.
-
Originally posted by Draklar
Originally posted by zanzibar
Originally posted by Bebel
could we play and ignore who is not IC ? just considere them as a \"population\" and play as we \'d like to.
It\'s a role-playing game......
Well yeah, that\'s the point. Ignoring people who are disruptive for role-playing. Treating someone as just background \"population\" is a good way to handle things. For the most part someone who stays ooc, doesn\'t even exist in the reality of Yliakum. Or simply walks around.
I agree, but it would be better if there was no OOC noise to ignore. A lot of it is just people who don\'t pick up on hints.... they ask about commands and mechanics and use words like \"keyboard\", and when others hint that they\'re behing inappropriately they don\'t pick up on it.
Anyway, Planeshift isn\'t populated enough for it to be a real problem IMO. Once the game gets closer to a full release and more people are playing at once, to the point where different maps might even be on different servers, then keeping the mood and atmosphere will be even more difficult. It\'s the nature of the beast though.
guppy writes:
\" You named me in game by my real name now you name in here, i feel i am entitled to reply, so hahahahahaha, and calling you a fool, and saying you are funny, and saying NO, to your demands to no were players are getting the thing you so desire makes me a idiot, Grow up. \"
I was short with you, but you were very rude and have been very rude in the past. Further, you just posted a chat log to a public forum. Maybe English isn\'t your first language because I don\'t think someone would be so careless with their spelling intentionally, but I\'d appreciate it if you would stop trying to contact me publically and privately.
-
Street gangs can vary from Chaotic Good to True Evil, I don\'t think they\'d be a good option. We already have what we need, we just need to develop it further. It takes time, sure, but so does the making of this game.
About people who confuse OOC and IC, we have to keep in mind that most of these people are uninformed about roleplaying. Hints and ignores won\'t help, unless we OOCly explain them what it is to roleplay and how it is important to distinguish OOC chat from IC.
If someone doesn\'t understand, even though they\'ve been accordingly explained, then their presence is unecessary and as such we should ignore them, using the lovely command.
PS: @ Buddha: I said \"start a war, in character.\" I think I\'ve enough members to start a pointless war where ranks, guild structure and a roleplay plot have no weight.
-
Originally posted by Karyuu
Originally posted by Suno_Regin
/tell seems completely OOC, how could you talk to someone from Hydlaa all the way to the Ojaveda Hills?
Suno, /tells are OOC unless you roleplay telepathy or whispers :)
or a really loud microphone
-
Well lets see i will quote you.
originally posted by Zanzibar
I was short with you, but you were very rude and have been very rude in the past. Further, you just posted a chat log to a public forum. Maybe English isn\'t your first language because I don\'t think someone would be so careless with their spelling intentionally, but I\'d appreciate it if you would stop trying to contact me publically and privately.
Lets break it down shall we :D
I was short with you Rather old chap. but you were very rude hahahahahaha, I must say old chap very rude of me. and have been very rude in the past. I say old chap pardon?.Further, you just posted a chat log to a public forum. I say old chap could have sworn it was /tells, must go to opticians.
Maybe English isn\'t your first language because I don\'t think someone would be so careless with their spelling intentionally,
i say old chap i am English just a bad at spelling, (i quote your own words here \"deal with it\".) but I\'d appreciate it if you would stop trying to contact me publically and privately.
I say old chap you spoke to me first i chose to reply, the rest is in your head.
-
Guppy, your just being childish...You hate him, so you say a lot of childish things to him, and blow away the point he is trying to make. If you would keep your mouth shut, this wouldn\'t be happening...Zanzibar was an idiot in the past, but hes had a lot of changes since then, so stop with the childish crap >.>
-
Originally posted by Suno_Regin
Guppy, your just being childish...You hate him, so you say a lot of childish things to him, and blow away the point he is trying to make. If you would keep your mouth shut, this wouldn\'t be happening...Zanzibar was an idiot in the past, but hes had a lot of changes since then, so stop with the childish crap >.>
Thanks, I think. Anyway you say it, this childish feud doesn\'t belong in a public forum.
-
Originally posted by Suno_Regin
Originally posted by Karyuu
Originally posted by Suno_Regin
/tell seems completely OOC, how could you talk to someone from Hydlaa all the way to the Ojaveda Hills?
Suno, /tells are OOC unless you roleplay telepathy or whispers :)
or a really loud microphone
well no, suno regin, because only one person hears them. another thing, the r.guppy/zanzibar thing is nothing to do with you so why step in?
-
Well, I am disappointed, if that is the worst there is to be found out there in Yliakum. As I set the trap for the first to raise his hand, he duly bit the worm dangled in front of him, and when the bait was swallowed whole and no outlet to be found. He wriggles weakly and lamely squeaks \"you lie you are banned from my chat\".
First part of trap slipped in; ban any person from talking to you. Like a RED rag to a mad bull he did scheme to get me, thinking that I am good and always have been, he thinks; this is easy I will get him.
Second part was wait till the time was right and be there in open sight, with my PET. Sure as night follows day he came, this lame little Elf and spied me, so he ranted where where where, to cut it short as the screenshot tells it all.
Third was the best of all; with his words he did dig his own grave, as all I had to do was prove that in one he lies so must he lie in all, but I was not done and had to taunt him just once more, and to my glee did flush out another claim to the throne of Baddest of the Bad.
You see to me bad is not restricted, even good can scheme to prove a point, so I, Janner, claim the Prize; for it was I that hurt you the most, by turning your lies against you.
Where evil lies depends on your point of view; if bad to you is good then good to you is bad, so where I am good, to you I must be bad.
(This was not personal but you were the first to lay claim to the title \"Baddest of the Bad\")
-
Janner / Guppy, your posts are very hard to read, I don\'t remember those events as you described them, you\'re spamming a public forum with a personal feud. I added you to my ignore list because I don\'t want to talk to you and I don\'t want you bugging me.
If you don\'t stop spamming, someone will eventually get the forum administrators to take action. I\'d rather that you take the opportunity to control your own behaviour, but it\'s your choice.
Edit: His actions reflect on him and no one else; I have not \"cried\" to anyone. Don\'t we know better now than to take in-game quarrels to supposedly OOC mediums?
-
Bravo, Janner.
Well done.
He calls you names, and cries for help.
You are victorious.
But surely he was not worth such effort, after all?
Verrliit smiles.
-
Any further posts that do not deal with the original subject will be removed. Please do not feed personal arguments.
-
me
Zeus
Link
Windwalker (he tried)
Gronomist
Annah
Kiern
dark Kada-El
Princess Aeyla
Devoted
..... the list could go on
-
There needs to be an incentive for players to be evil.
-
Originally posted by _Atticus
me
Zeus
Link
Windwalker (he tried)
Gronomist
Annah
Kiern
dark Kada-El
Princess Aeyla
Devoted
..... the list could go on
Accept that list has people I\'ve never heard of, and failed attempts...Dark Kada-El? Kiern? Annah? Link? Zeus? You? Gronomist? Devoted?
Am-heh should fit in there somewhere, instead you have all of these...People I\'ve never even heard about...And whats up with Dark Kada-El? That wasn\'t even a real person >.>
-
Suno, things have happened before your arrival, y\'know. :P Great things.
-
Alright, I can understand that...But still, when was there a Dark Kada-El? Was she bent on destroying the tavern, or forcing people to drink...:|
-
Did that guy just say Kada-El isn\'t a real person? o.O
And Am-Heh? I agree that children and clowns are evil, but not really serious evil so he doesn\'t fit on any of such lists.
Same goes for Link. Only replace \"children\" with any reference to sub-normal intelligence, which then can be used to do all sort of things, requiring this exact state of mind.
Let\'s see all the else... Don\'t know bout Atticus, he only seemed peanuty to me,
Don\'t know about Zeus, he didn\'t seem bad at all later,
Windwalker sometimes could go with same thing as Link,
Gronomist, yes, she was the evil, now she\'s huggable,
Annah ... heh ...
Kiern could be one heck of a peanuty elephant, but unless by bad we mean \"mean\", he wasn\'t so.
Dark Kada-El... She used to be dark? o.o
Aelya, she is >.>
Devoted, don\'t remember the guy.
And in general, bunch of oldbies that wouldn\'t be able to really do much nowadays and were only known because there used be less people in their times...
Probably beaten in evil even by Am-Heh, but Atticus can\'t possibly know that seeing as he lives in past, not in present.
-
Originally posted by Draklar
Did that guy just say Kada-El isn\'t a real person? o.O
And Am-Heh? I agree that children and clowns are evil, but not really serious evil so he doesn\'t fit on any of such lists.
Same goes for Link. Only replace \"children\" with any reference to sub-normal intelligence, which then can be used to do all sort of things, requiring this exact state of mind.
Let\'s see all the else... Don\'t know bout Atticus, he only seemed peanuty to me,
Don\'t know about Zeus, he didn\'t seem bad at all later,
Windwalker sometimes could go with same thing as Link,
Gronomist, yes, she was the evil, now she\'s huggable,
Annah ... heh ...
Kiern could be one heck of a peanuty elephant, but unless by bad we mean \"mean\", he wasn\'t so.
Dark Kada-El... She used to be dark? o.o
Aelya, she is >.>
Devoted, don\'t remember the guy.
And in general, bunch of oldbies that wouldn\'t be able to really do much nowadays and were only known because there used be less people in their times...
Probably beaten in evil even by Am-Heh, but Atticus can\'t possibly know that seeing as he lives in past, not in present.
Thats what I meant Draklar, I said that it didn\'t seem like a Dark Kada-El existed, not Kada-El herself :|
-
i dont think there is really any oppertunity to be \'bad\' and why im here /me points to the bottom of his post...
-
Originally posted by Drey
i dont think there is really any oppertunity to be \'bad\' and why im here /me points to the bottom of his post...
There are occassional opportunities to be bad. More recently, as Shalmaneser I was \"helping\" a new person learn about the game by having a mock duel with him to show him combat and magic. As part of his training, I dropped some health potions on the ground and proceeded to cast weakness on him two or three times. I told him in public chat, \"I\'ve just poisoned you. I give you about a minute to live unless you figure out how to drink those potions.\" Then I used /tell to instruct him on how to use them.
Only the good students survive Shalmaneser\'s PS 101.
-
Originally posted by zanzibar
There are occassional opportunities to be bad. More recently, as Shalmaneser I was \"helping\" a new person learn about the game by having a mock duel with him to show him combat and magic. As part of his training, I dropped some health potions on the ground and proceeded to cast weakness on him two or three times. I told him in public chat, \"I\'ve just poisoned you. I give you about a minute to live unless you figure out how to drink those potions.\" Then I used /tell to instruct him on how to use them.
So when teacher tells you that you have one day to do your homework and if you won\'t, you fail the class... Then the teacher is evil, hmm?
Interesting, but I don\'t buy it.
I am also interested in your excuse why an evil character poisoned someone and at once gave the antidote.
-
I think i see his point, to prolonge the pain and suffering.
If true a start and at lest bad. ;)
-
If you were poisoned and given healing potions, you\'d rather die than suffer a bit longer and get healed?
Strange...
-
Someone fighting you intent on your death, you would be a fool to even pick them up. :))
-
Nothing bad to do in this world ...
I ve tried but people said what i did was stupid, so i stoped it.
show the exit to newcomer and payed by their life first
that was ironical ...
I wonder if i \'d rather give up and convert to good ....
Seems that be evil means ploting only ...
-
Gubby, I\'d be grateful if the discussion had a logical construction, rather than a random one,
But I do realise I demand too much...
We\'re not talking about how smart the victim is, but rather how evil is someone who harms someone and then cures him.
Sure, one possibility is that he wanted him to suffer, but there\'s one special question which becomes a principle in Socratic method... Why?
-
by Draklar
Gubby , I\'d be grateful if the discussion had a logical construction, rather than a random one,
But I do realize I demand too much...
I think you mean Me, sorry but thought i was answering your question.
If you were poisoned and given healing potions, you\'d rather die than suffer a bit longer and get healed?
As i saw a ? i assumed you were asking one.
But if long winded you wont as you do not seem to understand short, so be it.
My point was if you are being attacked by a person you would be a fool to listen to him, and further to take your eyes of him to pick up a potion, asking for trouble. and last but not lest drink it on his say so, dumb to say the least.
As for my first statement it was as i said \"I think I see his point, to prolong the pain and suffering|.
If true a start and at lest bad.
But as he was not clear as to his intentions we will have to wait and see his reply.
PS.If it was me pp not bb please thank you. :))
-
Yeah, I\'m grumpy and stuff... Hope you don\'t take it too seriously :P
That\'s my point though. It doesn\'t matter whether someone needs to be dumb to listen or not. We can just assume the victim is an idiot, what matters is the reasoning behind the actions of evil character.
-
Originally posted by Draklar
Originally posted by zanzibar
There are occassional opportunities to be bad. More recently, as Shalmaneser I was \"helping\" a new person learn about the game by having a mock duel with him to show him combat and magic. As part of his training, I dropped some health potions on the ground and proceeded to cast weakness on him two or three times. I told him in public chat, \"I\'ve just poisoned you. I give you about a minute to live unless you figure out how to drink those potions.\" Then I used /tell to instruct him on how to use them.
So when teacher tells you that you have one day to do your homework and if you won\'t, you fail the class... Then the teacher is evil, hmm?
Interesting, but I don\'t buy it.
I am also interested in your excuse why an evil character poisoned someone and at once gave the antidote.
In this case, failure means death.:)
-
Well I noted the topic of this post and I wanted to contribute some of my personal opinions. Before I do I would like to point out that some might agree with it and some might not. To those that do not agree I wish to say \"Shove it!!\". I know I am a fool but they are no less moronic. The world my friends is a big crackhouse. There is no reason to think that your bullsh!t is better than mine. The bull/cow may differ but its still \"sh!t\". ;)
Evil, as I see it, is pure apathy. Evil is to do what you want and not care how it affects others. No matter what example you can cook up it can be fitted into this model. To have acted evilly is to have acted without regard to the effects on fellow creatures. Whether driven by the noblest motives or the basest instincts it is always evil to disregard the fallout. Think a bit and you will see.
That said I would like to point out some ideas that come up in this thread which I agree with.
First I think that there needs to be evil in the realms. There has to be something for the good guys to do. How can they claim to be good if all they ever get to do is have tea parties. They are not good. They have simply not faced any situation where a moral decision needs to be taken.
Second I disagree that the game needs to support things like PKing and stuff for evil people to really have fun. Sure that would be nice but you can also have fun without it if you are creative. I\'ve had fun in my days and considering I scarcely ever was ingame there is some credibility to this statement I make.
Third I disagree that the environment is hostile so its killing off evil. Being evil was never meant to be a walk in the park. Ofcourse you will be ranted at , whined at and persecuted by the\"Oh-So-righteous! Holier-than-thou\" GMs. But if you whine about it then you are no different from other lame whiners. A poseur villian so to speak. Be creative. Evil finds a way. After all it is primal. Good is a refinement. Evil is natural. And you give the GMs and Devs too much credit if you assume they have made a watertight game.
Thats it for this post. This issue is too long to be addressed in a single shot. I will continue this elaboration in later posts. I know you probably don\'t care but m3h you can kiss me keester!
PS: Howdy Drak!!;)
-
Originally posted by zanzibar
In this case, failure means death.:)
Yeah, well, that doesn\'t explain anything. Both have negative consequences, and what those are - doesn\'t matter.
-
Originally posted by Auran
Evil, as I see it, is pure apathy. Evil is to do what you want and not care how it affects others. No matter what example you can cook up it can be fitted into this model.
Nope. If someone acts to hurt someone, they are not apathetic, but we would describe their actions as evil, and themselves by extension.
Originally posted by Draklar
Originally posted by zanzibar
In this case, failure means death.:)
Yeah, well, that doesn\'t explain anything. Both have negative consequences, and what those are - doesn\'t matter.
A good or kind teacher might be more patient and friendly.
-
Originally posted by zanzibar
A good or kind teacher might be more patient and friendly.
Unless his patience is at a wane, due to the pupil slacking off :P
-
Originally posted by Draklar
Originally posted by zanzibar
A good or kind teacher might be more patient and friendly.
Unless his patience is at a wane, due to the pupil slacking off :P
The guy I was helping wasn\'t slacking off at all. He was eager to learn.
-
That\'s irrelevant. Unless you taught him in-character. But then a question arises if that relly is evil or just rigorous. And if teaching someone to drink ic is good role-play wise too. After all character had to drink something before in order to survive.
-
Originally posted by Draklar
That\'s irrelevant. Unless you taught him in-character. But then a question arises if that relly is evil or just rigorous. And if teaching someone to drink ic is good role-play wise too. After all character had to drink something before in order to survive.
I was helping him out while in-character. I think experiencing your first health potion can be RPed. The evil bit was casting weakness on him, forcing him to drink the potions under the looming threat of death.
-
Yeah, seems completely deprived of reason, purpose, any form of \"why?\". completely unnatural event too.
Sorry, it\'s just that I don\'t see behaviour of characters lacking any purpose as well role-played. But that\'s just my personal opinion.
-
So i think i got it it was sort of bad, also bad training metherds.
But i will go with Draklar on this one. ;)
-
Originally posted by Draklar
Yeah, seems completely deprived of reason, purpose, any form of \"why?\". completely unnatural event too.
Sorry, it\'s just that I don\'t see behaviour of characters lacking any purpose as well role-played. But that\'s just my personal opinion.
Deprived of reason? Purpose? Isn\'t that entirely intuitive? And how do you get off calling it unnatural, when pretty much anything anybody does is unnatural? And further, even if you don\'t know why someone is doing something, it\'s awfully arrogant to then say that person is acting without purpose. But that\'s just my personal experience.:)
-
Originally posted by zanzibar
Deprived of reason? Purpose? Isn\'t that entirely intuitive? And how do you get off calling it unnatural, when pretty much anything anybody does is unnatural? And further, even if you don\'t know why someone is doing something, it\'s awfully arrogant to then say that person is acting without purpose. But that\'s just my personal experience.:)
I already asked for the purpose of such behaviour. And was given none. That\'s not arrogant, I simply reprocess the facts I\'ve been given.
Evil character hurting someone to gain money, or to get rid of something who might be a danger for his plans = natural.
Evil character poisoning someone and then giving healing potions with no personal gain out of it taken = very unnatural.
-
Originally posted by Draklar
Originally posted by zanzibar
Deprived of reason? Purpose? Isn\'t that entirely intuitive? And how do you get off calling it unnatural, when pretty much anything anybody does is unnatural? And further, even if you don\'t know why someone is doing something, it\'s awfully arrogant to then say that person is acting without purpose. But that\'s just my personal experience.:)
I already asked for the purpose of such behaviour. And was given none. That\'s not arrogant, I simply reprocess the facts I\'ve been given.
Evil character hurting someone to gain money, or to get rid of something who might be a danger for his plans = natural.
Evil character poisoning someone and then giving healing potions with no personal gain out of it taken = very unnatural.
The fact that no reason was given doesn\'t mean there was an utter lack of reason and intention and design. And who says there always has to be personal gain in the form of money or power?
-
Evil is not killing someone - Evil is killing someone, Framing some other chump, winning the court case to own all there property, then visiting them once a week in prision just to laugh at them.
Evil is not making people angry - Evil is making friends become enemys by carefully construction opinions into daggers and handing opposing ones to each side then driving on each side to a messy battle, then when they look to you to fill there void of a friendship that once was abuse that for profit and personal gain
Evil is not a job - its a damn fun way of life!
(This advertisment was brought to you by the socity of guys who burn down orpahages so they can have slave childeren)
-
Originally posted by zanzibar
The fact that no reason was given doesn\'t mean there was an utter lack of reason and intention and design.
Well since you don\'t give any, we can assume that
a) There are none
b) The example serves absolutely no purpose since not enough details were given
And the fact that you keep avoiding giving any, quite frankly points me to the first option.
Originally posted by zanzibar
And who says there always has to be personal gain in the form of money or power?
Those were just examples. But there has to be some kind of reason for anything someone does. Even if not logical, there must be a reason. You don\'t go around harming people because you are evil. Rather you are evil because of something.
-
Originally posted by seperot
Evil is not killing someone - Evil is killing someone, Framing some other chump, winning the court case to own all there property, then visiting them once a week in prision just to laugh at them.
Evil is not making people angry - Evil is making friends become enemys by carefully construction opinions into daggers and handing opposing ones to each side then driving on each side to a messy battle, then when they look to you to fill there void of a friendship that once was abuse that for profit and personal gain
Evil is not a job - its a damn fun way of life!
(This advertisment was brought to you by the socity of guys who burn down orpahages so they can have slave childeren)
And some would argue that evil doesn\'t exist at all except as a social construction.:)
Originally posted by Draklar
Originally posted by zanzibar
The fact that no reason was given doesn\'t mean there was an utter lack of reason and intention and design.
Well since you don\'t give any, we can assume that
a) There are none
b) The example serves absolutely no purpose since not enough details were given
And the fact that you keep avoiding giving any, quite frankly points me to the first option.
Originally posted by zanzibar
And who says there always has to be personal gain in the form of money or power?
Those were just examples. But there has to be some kind of reason for anything someone does. Even if not logical, there must be a reason. You don\'t go around harming people because you are evil. Rather you are evil because of something.
Like I said, it\'s silly to assume that an action has no reason simply because you don\'t already know what the reason for that action is.
Can\'t you just say that one person harms another out of amusement, or perhaps because that person feels it serves a greater goal, or perhaps because that person feels it\'s a more effective technique than being pleasant? There\'s any number of ways to explain such behaviour.
-
Originally posted by zanzibar
Like I said, it\'s silly to assume that an action has no reason simply because you don\'t already know what the reason for that action is.
I\'m sorry, can you read?
\"b) The example serves absolutely no purpose since not enough details were given\"
Originally posted by zanzibar
Can\'t you just say that one person harms another out of amusement, or perhaps because that person feels it serves a greater goal, or perhaps because that person feels it\'s a more effective technique than being pleasant? There\'s any number of ways to explain such behaviour.
So out of a sudden a character decides to harm a random person just for his amusement... (because?) That\'s not a reason. Like the rest of it.
Look at Seperot, who has his character planned to the bits. With no problem he could give reason to any of his behaviour.
And one more thing,
Evil: [n] morally objectionable behavior
So morally objectionable behaviour does not exist and murdering exists only as a social construction, right.
-
Previously posted by Draklar:
So morally objectionable behaviour does not exist and murdering exists only as a social construction, right.
The objectiveness of Morals and Law is limited to the social group they are being discussed in. Both Moral and Order are fruits of our Superego, and therefore social concepts.
Previously posted by zanzibar:
And some would argue that evil doesn\'t exist at all except as a social construction.
Evil does exist. As a social concept. Keep in mind that social behaviour plays a great role in humanity and in alot of life forms.
PS: If Draklar\'s sarcasm sounds rightful, it is because of the underestimating use of the word \"construction\" present in the sentence (i.e claiming murder is simply something people constructed sounds outrageous.) Just a matter of rhetoric ^^.
-
Originally posted by Sangwa
Previously posted by Draklar:
So morally objectionable behaviour does not exist and murdering exists only as a social construction, right.
The objectiveness of Morals and Law is limited to the social group they are being discussed in. Both Moral and Order are fruits of our Superego, and therefore social concepts.
Yes, yes, you explained what I meant quite well in further part. Only (or rather \"doesn\'t exist at all\", but you know what I mean) is the keyword, which I disagreed with.
Mwah! Colorized :P
-
Originally posted by Draklar
Originally posted by zanzibar
Like I said, it\'s silly to assume that an action has no reason simply because you don\'t already know what the reason for that action is.
I\'m sorry, can you read?
\"b) The example serves absolutely no purpose since not enough details were given\"
Originally posted by zanzibar
Can\'t you just say that one person harms another out of amusement, or perhaps because that person feels it serves a greater goal, or perhaps because that person feels it\'s a more effective technique than being pleasant? There\'s any number of ways to explain such behaviour.
So out of a sudden a character decides to harm a random person just for his amusement... (because?) That\'s not a reason. Like the rest of it.
Look at Seperot, who has his character planned to the bits. With no problem he could give reason to any of his behaviour.
And one more thing,
Evil: [n] morally objectionable behavior
So morally objectionable behaviour does not exist and murdering exists only as a social construction, right.
A social interactionist would say that moral values are social constructions arising from group concensus through human agency. While those definitions have no objective existence, the group gives those definitions an objective existence through actions, institutions, the law, etc.
-
Originally posted by zanzibar
A social interactionist would say that moral values are social constructions arising from group concensus through human agency. While those definitions have no objective existence, the group gives those definitions an objective existence through actions, institutions, the law, etc.
A rationalist would say that all this is irrelevant, since Seperot addressed a speciffic behaviour, which no matter whether called \"evil\" or \"good\" remains the same behaviour.
-
Originally posted by Draklar
Originally posted by zanzibar
A social interactionist would say that moral values are social constructions arising from group concensus through human agency. While those definitions have no objective existence, the group gives those definitions an objective existence through actions, institutions, the law, etc.
A rationalist would say that all this is irrelevant, since Seperot addressed a speciffic behaviour, which no matter whether called \"evil\" or \"good\" remains the same behaviour.
Now you\'re just changing the subject.:)
-
Originally posted by zanzibar
Originally posted by seperot
Evil is not killing someone - Evil is killing someone, Framing some other chump, winning the court case to own all there property, then visiting them once a week in prision just to laugh at them.
Evil is not making people angry - Evil is making friends become enemys by carefully construction opinions into daggers and handing opposing ones to each side then driving on each side to a messy battle, then when they look to you to fill there void of a friendship that once was abuse that for profit and personal gain
Evil is not a job - its a damn fun way of life!
(This advertisment was brought to you by the socity of guys who burn down orpahages so they can have slave childeren)
And some would argue that evil doesn\'t exist at all except as a social construction.:)
I quoted the above just so you see what we\'ve been talking about in the last few posts.
-
I gave an explanation of why evil can be a social construction yet still have an objective reality. This conversation has derailed so I\'m not really sure where we are.
-
Evil, as I see it, is pure apathy. Evil is to do what you want and not care how it affects others. No matter what example you can cook up it can be fitted into this model. To have acted evilly is to have acted without regard to the effects on fellow creatures. Whether driven by the noblest motives or the basest instincts it is always evil to disregard the fallout. Think a bit and you will see.
Well spoken my dear friend, well spoken. Of course, as always. Seeing those words, I guess I fit very well in that category didn\'t I?
You know, Atticus\' list was sure very interesting, and true. Draklar, Devoted was the founder and leader of the Forsaken Ones.
Hm, the little princess\' words were also interesting, \"great things happened before\". Yeah, maybe it is time to leave the shadows I live in. The community needs something that means evil around.
;)
-
Evil, as I see it, is pure apathy. Evil is to do what you want and not care how it affects others. No matter what example you can cook up it can be fitted into this model. To have acted evilly is to have acted without regard to the effects on fellow creatures. Whether driven by the noblest motives or the basest instincts it is always evil to disregard the fallout. Think a bit and you will see.
Ohh... didn\'t notice that. Ok, I can turn that down.
First of all, I often do what I want to do and don\'t think how it may affect others. But I don\'t want to do \"bad\" things, since it\'s just not me. When I help someone to pick things up, I don\'t think how it may affect someone, I simply do it. Only because I want to.
I don\'t behave well for other people, I do it for myself. For all I care most of the people on Earth could just go to hell.
But I don\'t think I\'m evil... I am chaotic-neutral actually >.>
Oh, and pure apathy? Haha, if evil people were apathic, they wouldn\'t be successful lawyers :P
-
But I don\'t think I\'m evil... I am chaotic-neutral actually >.>
Yeah, no one said you\'re evil.
:D
Oh, and I almost forgot. Suno Regin, grab a history book, you\'ll need it, end of time is near.
:))
-
Evil can be apathic. It isn\'t apathy though.
Sangwa for instance is lawful evil. However, he is not doing all he pleases, since he is following orders and rules. Also, he is conscious of other people; being a diplomat he is aware that people are an imense source of power.
While not being a displeasant person, Sangwa aims all his efforts towards the forceful domination of Yliakum.
Sure, most of you wouldn\'t consider him as Lawful Evil. But, with the same certainty, most of you have no idea what he thinks or achieves.
-
Originally posted by Sangwa
Evil can be apathic.
That sentence although true, doesn\'t say much ;)
All evil, good and neutral can be apathic, it isn\'t depending on alignment.
And yeah, lawful-evil is often unnoticed. Maybe because when hearing \"evil\", people think about people who cause disorder and break the law.
-
That\'s because some laws are also made to prevent evil actions.
That sentence although true, doesn\'t say much ;)
It was a reference to the current topic. It also expressed my opinion about evil being pure apathy. I\'m not sure why it should say anything besides that :P.
-
Originally posted by Draklar
Originally posted by Sangwa
Evil can be apathic.
That sentence although true, doesn\'t say much ;)
All evil, good and neutral can be apathic, it isn\'t depending on alignment.
And yeah, lawful-evil is often unnoticed. Maybe because when hearing \"evil\", people think about people who cause disorder and break the law.
Would a corrupt politician qualify as lawful evil?
-
Sangwa: Current topic was strongly connecting evil with apathy, so it needed clarification ;)
Zanzibar: Yeah. Someone who shows morally objectionable behavior, but thinks it\'s ok as long as justified through law, should be considered as lawful-evil. Simply someone who uses law to steal from ohers and such.
-
Well lawful evil could be a person who makes others suffer, but has a personal codex, for instance he wouldn\'t harm children (but he wouldn\'t hestitate to kill their parents).
-
Although children isn\'t the best example (as same would happen if someone didn\'t have the heart to harm children). But not attacking the defenseless would do well.
-
Originally posted by Draklar
Sangwa: Current topic was strongly connecting evil with apathy, so it needed clarification ;)
Zanzibar: Yeah. Someone who shows morally objectionable behavior, but thinks it\'s ok as long as justified through law, should be considered as lawful-evil. Simply someone who uses law to steal from ohers and such.
That\'s not what my understanding has been, but this is part of the problem with labels. I\'ve always thought of lawful evil as an evil-motivated character who has a strong personal code of conduct.
-
Originally posted by zanzibar
That\'s not what my understanding has been, but this is part of the problem with labels. I\'ve always thought of lawful evil as an evil-motivated character who has a strong personal code of conduct.
That\'s because both definitions apply. It\'s same case as with lawful-neutral; Where one might be a city guard, whilst other a free-lance warrior following a code of honour.
From same definition:A lawful evil character methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts.
[...]
Many lawful evil characters use society and its laws for selfish advantages, exploiting the letter of the law over its spirit whenever it best suits their interests.
[...]
Lawful evil is sometimes called \"diabolical\", because devils are the epitome of lawful evil. Other examples of lawful evil characters include tyrants, petty bureaucrats, and mafia bosses.
-
mmm..... out of interest where do i come on the shiny scale of evil?
i dont think im chaotic. i prefer some reason behind everything i do...yet i doubt im lawfull since i find rage a just cause under some conditions....:P
also if you want a grade A chaotic evil person...look up that fakeshadow chick....freakin nuts...
-
Chaotic evil doesn\'t mean you\'re random. It means you don\'t care about the law and feel just fine causing destruction and mayhem. Doing whatever your greed and hatred push you to do.
-
I don\'t think Seperot\'s Chaotic Evil though. Chaotic Evil people are rarely capable of leading or forming any groups. It\'s within their nature to harm everyone around them.
Seperot would be more like True Evil, using every mean he has to satisfy his whim, while being capable of understanding law enough to use it.
Lawful Evil characters are lawful evil as long as their actions reflect some kind of rule or order while posing a threat and harm to people.
A Lawful Evil man can delight in killing children, but he\'s not throwing himself into a self-indulgence rush, but structuring something that allows the controled satisfaction of that desire.
For example, a tyrant who creates a children sacrifice ritual. He enjoys their suffering, but he finds that slaughtering them might go against his best interest.
That\'s why I enjoy this alignment so much. Lawful Evil for me is being ambitious while being calculist. Just like playing a game.
-
You waste way too much time with discussions which kind of \"evil\" is the \"most evil\" and which not. That\'s why there\'s no one around that can be called a person who deals with \"evil actions\".
You see, good, evil, they\'re only words, they\'re both relative. Same as the borders that exists between them, they exist only in our mind.
After all, there\'s only the person and the goals he wants to achieve in his lifetime. Of course, because the paths he\'ll follow might differ from others, and in their views might be wrong, that doesn\'t mean it\'s evil, nor good.
-
Annah, while that statement holds true to the real world..it realy cant be placed in this realm well...in games people \"Like\" to have it more black and white....not too much but just enough so people can see where boundarys lie....thats why i\'ve given up on my \"evil by actions not by the words\" stint :P
in short terms...its a game therefor real world policys cant ever stick to it....much like walking outdoors with a pair of daggers outside is not accepted in the real world :D
-
Damn you, you might be right. But I still hold my statement. You do realize that my pride doesn\'t let me agree with you.
:P
Oh by the way, I started to download the client. Hm...
-
There isn\'t such a thing as time wasted when one\'s having fun ^^.
Also, everything we type are but words. And our mind is as important a realm as the one our bodies linger in.
And I so much disagree with how some people disregard the alignment system. For me, it\'s pure romanticism, and as players (and rational people) we should all be able to tell good from evil and law from chaos.
It IS possible to label characters! And it\'s useful too! This way players may know the guilds and organizations more fit to their character.
It\'s also possible to classify them in various ways, not just the Dungeon & Dragon way.
I keep saying this about alignments, and have already posted it in the wish list: The Developers should choose an alignment system. Chosing no alignment system is a valid choice, but they have to specify, else people will keep spawning their own ideas and disregard any kind of organization the alignment systems should bring.
-
There isn\'t such a thing as time wasted when one\'s having fun ^^.
Oh yeah, like in the old times. ^_^
I keep saying this about alignments, and have already posted it in the wish list: The Developers should choose an alignment system. Chosing no alignment system is a valid choice, but they have to specify, else people will keep spawning their own ideas and disregard any kind of organization the alignment systems should bring.
And isn\'t this better? A greater freedom? After all, this way more people will \"love\" the game, having their own ideas in this matter.
Meh, and who cursed me again? It seems I cannot download the game client by any means. Meh.
-
Yay, I\'ll get to see Annah in-game in a remote future!
As long as freedom is concerned... Currently we are quite free, we just don\'t understand each other.
That\'s rather chaotic and in portuguese it wouldn\'t even be called Freedom (Liberdade), but chaotic freedom (Libertinagem.)
-
Originally posted by Annah
There isn\'t such a thing as time wasted when one\'s having fun ^^.
Oh yeah, like in the old times. ^_^
I keep saying this about alignments, and have already posted it in the wish list: The Developers should choose an alignment system. Chosing no alignment system is a valid choice, but they have to specify, else people will keep spawning their own ideas and disregard any kind of organization the alignment systems should bring.
And isn\'t this better? A greater freedom? After all, this way more people will \"love\" the game, having their own ideas in this matter.
Meh, and who cursed me again? It seems I cannot download the game client by any means. Meh.
Chaotic evil is fun to RP once in a while, but it\'s also fun to enforce certain rules and constraints onto yourself. For instance, do not murder an innocent, or do not rob from a thief, or do not deal in weapons. It adds colour.
-
Originally posted by Annah
You see, good, evil, they\'re only words, they\'re both relative. Same as the borders that exists between them, they exist only in our mind.
If I was given $1 each time you said that, I could buy myself a big bag of candies.
And if I was given $1 each time someone countered this argument, instantly making it lose its worth, I\'d have... two bags of candies \\o/
For the n time, Annah.
The words aren\'t relative!
They have specific meaning behind them that you could easily find in any dictionary.
It doesn\'t matter whether you\'ll replce \'good\' with \'evil\' and \'evil\' with \'good\'.
Or \'good\' --> \'sheep\', \'evil\' --> \'lemon\' for that matter.
That meaning behind all this will remain the same.
You know \'school\' is only a word, but likewise it isn\'t relative. You can\'t define school as fruit growing on a palm tree. There\'s specific meaning behind them. It\'s basic knowledge of communication. We use words to express certain meaning and we define the words so that we can communicate between each other. I hope this had to be explained for the last time.
Oh and Sep, there\'s no difference between real-life evil and rpg evil. I can call myself chaotic-neutral and Vero lawful-evil on just about same basis.
-
Oh and Sep, there\'s no difference between real-life evil and rpg evil. I can call myself chaotic-neutral and Vero lawful-evil on just about same basis.
i was more on the what people want wave...
also.... School of fish \\o
-
Originally posted by Draklar
Originally posted by Annah
You see, good, evil, they\'re only words, they\'re both relative. Same as the borders that exists between them, they exist only in our mind.
If I was given $1 each time you said that, I could buy myself a big bag of candies.
And if I was given $1 each time someone countered this argument, instantly making it lose its worth, I\'d have... two bags of candies \\o/
For the n time, Annah.
The words aren\'t relative!
They have specific meaning behind them that you could easily find in any dictionary.
It doesn\'t matter whether you\'ll replce \'good\' with \'evil\' and \'evil\' with \'good\'.
Or \'good\' --> \'sheep\', \'evil\' --> \'lemon\' for that matter.
That meaning behind all this will remain the same.
You know \'school\' is only a word, but likewise it isn\'t relative. You can\'t define school as fruit growing on a palm tree. There\'s specific meaning behind them. It\'s basic knowledge of communication. We use words to express certain meaning and we define the words so that we can communicate between each other. I hope this had to be explained for the last time.
Oh and Sep, there\'s no difference between real-life evil and rpg evil. I can call myself chaotic-neutral and Vero lawful-evil on just about same basis.
hmmm so in the dictionary it says what good is? Look it up and a good dictionary will give so many meanings that you can hardly call it a description of the meaning but only of how it is used.
But even if you have a meaning to the word what is concidered good is still not the same. What is a good game for example? Different answers by different people and so it is with all things.
If a guild rises how can you say if it\'s good? You can say the majority of the people think the guild will do good but does it then make it good by what the majority thinks?
Same with evil. chopping down trees to build a farm there might by some concidered good becusse it will provide food for people. While others might say it\'s an evil act to destroy nature in this way and people should learn to live with nature more closely instead.
Ofcourse good and evil aren\'t totally relative but they aren\'t defined words either as with taste it differs per person how they feel about it it and what it means to them.
-
Originally posted by Pestilence
hmmm so in the dictionary it says what good is? Look it up and a good dictionary will give so many meanings that you can hardly call it a description of the meaning but only of how it is used.
Good
[adj] having or showing or arising from a desire to promote the welfare or happiness of others.
This should be enough to answer the question. Is the desire to promote the welfare relative? No, only how it is done can be different, the whole desire is a set term. It also explains how come all types of good (lawful, neutral, chaotic) are good, despise \"doing their thing\" differently.
Originally posted by Pestilence
But even if you have a meaning to the word what is concidered good is still not the same. What is a good game for example? Different answers by different people and so it is with all things.
Good game has no connection with the actual ethical meaning of good. Come up with relevant example, after reading the definition I pointed out above.
Originally posted by Pestilence
If a guild rises how can you say if it\'s good? You can say the majority of the people think the guild will do good but does it then make it good by what the majority thinks?
Is that relevant? I can\'t possibly be absolutely sure what someone is like. But does my lack of knowledge change anything? Again, I point to the definition.
Originally posted by Pestilence
Same with evil. chopping down trees to build a farm there might by some concidered good becusse it will provide food for people. While others might say it\'s an evil act to destroy nature in this way and people should learn to live with nature more closely instead.
This was brought up so many times... And yet it is such a simple concept to understand. Most of the actions we do consist of both \'good\' and \'evil\', what is the stronger factor in our actions, decides on our \'alignment\'.
I advise looking into the yin and yang concept.
Everything has its opposite - although this is never absolute, only comparative. No one thing is completely yin or completely yang. Each contains the seed of its opposite.
Originally posted by Pestilence
Ofcourse good and evil aren\'t totally relative but they aren\'t defined words either as with taste it differs per person how they feel about it it and what it means to them.
And once again I point to the above definition. Causing happiness isn\'t relative. Either someone gets happier thanks to your actions, or not.
It goes down to,
Good - causing happiness.
Evil - causing misfortune.
Pretty well defined to me.
Edit: Was listening to \"The Ripper\" song and it reminded me:
Sangwa, the whole leadership skills of Seperot appear to me to be solely an ooc thing. I cannot fathom how someone of such past as Seperot could grow to be a skilled leader. He much more appears to me as the Ripper of Planeshift, who is inclined to commit bloody murders on other people.
Developing charisma while being tormented and made fun of during the childhood isn\'t likely to happen. Anger, hatred, doing things by force is much more reasonable.
-
Draklar, for god\'s sake large your views and see out of that tiny box you live in. (Oh my how good I\'m feeling saying these words)
Oh and Sep, there\'s no difference between real-life evil and rpg evil. I can call myself chaotic-neutral and Vero lawful-evil on just about same basis.
With that, your statement before that phrase just lost its meaning. Why? Because no one said I was wrong in what I said, they just said it won\'t apply in a game for RPing example. Why? Why can\'t you agree with me and say you were wrong? Though everyone is welcome and free to have their own opinion, I guess that makes \"something\" being relative after all ...
:rolleyes:
Pestilence covered up pretty well, but I\'ll say something one more time.
Good - causing happiness.
Evil - causing misfortune.
Pretty well defined to me.
Happiness for who? What can bring joy for some, can bring sorrow for others. Same goes for \"evil\". Pretty? What I can consider beautiful, you can consider damn ugly.
Ofcourse good and evil aren\'t totally relative but they aren\'t defined words either as with taste it differs per person how they feel about it it and what it means to them.
You\'re too smart for him. Welcome to PlaneShift.
:D
-
Draklar yes that was his life till 12... but he may hate....alot but he has more of a lack of trust which he uses a personallity mask to make people belive he is nicer then he is....dont wanna get more into it....it gives away too much :P
-
Annah, since you\'re more open minded and smarter than me, I\'m sure you know what argumentum ad hominem is. And if you don\'t, look it up so you can try to not repeat doing that during discussions.
Now to answer your points.
Draklar, for god\'s sake large your views and see out of that tiny box you live in. (Oh my how good I\'m feeling saying these words)
Nothing to answer here, completely personal venture.
With that, your statement before that phrase just lost its meaning. Why? Because no one said I was wrong in what I said, they just said it won\'t apply in a game for RPing example.
My statement before that phrase lost its meaning because no one said you were wrong? Sorry, but that logic is... flawed?
I said it won\'t apply to both rl and rp, as both should be based on same psychological rules. Game is a game, but for proper role-playing you have to create realistic characters.
Why? Why can\'t you agree with me and say you were wrong? Though everyone is welcome and free to have their own opinion, I guess that makes \"something\" being relative after all ...
Usually after \"Why?\" I\'d expect a reason, but here I see only question why I can\'t agree that I were wrong. The answer is simple, really. You don\'t give logical arguments, which would ultimately support what you said, and prove my statements as wrong. Instead I hear personal attacks, which quite frankly, won\'t convince me to admit you are right.
And by the way, opinion isn\'t a measurable characteristic, thus can\'t be relative. Same with good (Does \"he\'s showing a desire to promote the welfare or happiness of others compared to someone else.\" make sense?), it isn\'t a measurable characteristic. Someone being worse/better. Those are relative terms.
Happiness for who? What can bring joy for some, can bring sorrow for others. Same goes for \"evil\". Pretty? What I can consider beautiful, you can consider damn ugly.
Did you miss that point intentionally?
\"Everything has its opposite - although this is never absolute, only comparative. No one thing is completely yin or completely yang. Each contains the seed of its opposite.\"
Now second point, Annah as beautiful I consider something that is delighting the senses or exciting intellectual or emotional admiration. You don\'t?
Sure we can go into opinions, as to what is delighting senses and what is not, but those are only opinions. Opinions don\'t count when judging something. Do you think in law when judging someone people go all \"in my opinion you are guilty.\"? No, they have a large set of articles and rules, supported by facts brought up by others to do that (in same way we have set of definitions to help us to judge what is good and what is evil).
Otherwise it would be like \"I believe you are guilty and that you should die for what you did, so that\'s what shall happen. Case closed.\"
Again, opinions are irrelevant.
You\'re too smart for him. Welcome to PlaneShift.
Was there a need for this empty statement?
-
You don\'t give logical arguments, ...
What means \"logical\"?
Instead I hear personal attacks
It\'s called irony. Meh, \"Annah\" has chosen you for that. Be proud.
Was there a need for this empty statement?
Not really.
Let me add something. Look, an \"evil\" character, Sangwa. Don\'t know about you, but when the name \"Sangwa\" comes in my mind, it comes along with joy and cheerful moments (followed by thoughts of respect and admiration). I just can\'t see him \"evil\" (how you define it).
Now, I think we should end this discussion before it will end up being far far away from its meaning. I guess we all said our opinions, and because they might differ doesn\'t mean this \"becomes something personal\". I\'d be forced to believe you\'re crazy then, you know, the \"there\'s always a conspiracy\" type. To finish this, I still hold my statements, no matter what you shall say. Those are your personal opinions, you got mine.
See ya in\'game.
-
Originally posted by Annah
What means \"logical\"?
Coming as an outcome of process of reasoning, or standing in accordance with it.
Originally posted by Annah
It\'s called irony.
I beg to differ, it\'s called flaming.
Originally posted by Annah Let me add something. Look, an \"evil\" character, Sangwa. Don\'t know about you, but when the name \"Sangwa\" comes in my mind, it comes along with joy and cheerful moments (followed by thoughts of respect and admiration). I just can\'t see him \"evil\" (how you define it).
And you\'d expect evil character which strives to conquer as much as possible on the path of politics and careful planning to behave how, exactly?
-
*Seperot wonders in throws a dagger into annah\'s head then snaps Draklar\'s neck*
mmh....good
*Seperot notes other people are looking*
err....for my next trick i will juggle flaming nebuduck\'s
*Seperot starts juggling for the shiny people*
-
And you\'d expect evil character which strives to conquer as much as possible on the path of politics and careful planning to behave how, exactly?
Great, at least someone understands my character ^^.
Sangwa\'s a perfectionist, so he wishes to have his plans well traced before making any kind of move.
His actions are all contributions to a cause that our social group finds evil: conquering the world, even through forceful means. So I don\'t think it\'s wrong to claim he is evil.
Anyway, I think roleplayers sometimes care too much with the Good vs Evil stuff. But as long as it\'s fun, I shan\'t complaing too much :D.
-
I haven\'t been around long and I haven\'t read this entire thread, but I can say that I met someone in the death realm library today who claimed to be really evil named \"Alhana\" (I think that was it anyway) with a secret guild called \"Infectum Animus\". Claimed to be controlling 4 guilds toward spreading evil in the lands.
-
If you\'re reviving an old thread, the least you could do is read the entire thing :P Please.
-
Evil guy telling you he\'s evil..he just stupid. Secret guild? Not anymore. Backs up my theory of his stupidity. Controlling 4 guilds? Yeah, with 5 inactive people in em each, not doin anything. Cheers Alhana the Mindless
Karyuu: Preach!
-
Originally posted by Karyuu
If you\'re reviving an old thread, the least you could do is read the entire thing :P Please.
Are you following me around the forums and picking on me?
Might as well revive some old threads just to get some more action around here.
-
Originally posted by ylikone
I haven\'t been around long and I haven\'t read this entire thread, but I can say that I met someone in the death realm library today who claimed to be really evil named \"Alhana\" (I think that was it anyway) with a secret guild called \"Infectum Animus\". Claimed to be controlling 4 guilds toward spreading evil in the lands.
As I remember our conversation went nothing like that Ylikone.
1) I dont remember saying I was dark. You made that descion and judgement.
2) Once again, if I was such a secret would I be posting with a signature that links me to the guild.
3) 4 Guilds?!?! Where the hell did you get that from?!?. Clearly someone has a vivid imagination.
Originally posted by Talamir
Evil guy telling you he\'s evil..he just stupid. Secret guild? Not anymore. Backs up my theory of his stupidity. Controlling 4 guilds? Yeah, with 5 inactive people in em each, not doin anything. Cheers Alhana the Mindless
Talamir as I come to remember you were the one who couldnt even understand \"Put away your swords\". You had to wait for your master to come pat you on the head and tickle your belly.
Such little you do know... opps I forgot, you dont play much do you, I suppose thats a good thing.
Alhana shugs and walks off
-
Originally posted by Alhana
As I remember our conversation went nothing like that Ylikone.
1) I dont remember say I was dark. You made that descion and jugdement.
2) Once again if I was such a secret would I be posting with a signature that links me to the guild.
3) 4 Guilds?!?! Where the hell did you get that from?!?. Clearly someone has a vivid migination.
Hmmm.... ok, whatever.
-
Originally posted by ylikone
Originally posted by Karyuu
If you\'re reviving an old thread, the least you could do is read the entire thing :P Please.
Are you following me around the forums and picking on me?
Might as well revive some old threads just to get some more action around here.
Calm down Ylikone, she just doesn\'t want to see the same stuff repeated in the thread...
That being said, Sangwa and Seperot and the two most evil people...so trust me and not then :D
As for guilds, evil guilds don\'t stay active long enough to do anything much. Having said that, the cabal did do quite a bit in it\'s day.
-
Originally posted by Waylander
As for guilds, evil guilds don\'t stay active long enough to do anything much.
That is true. However some guilds (like IA) is RP based, that is to say that the people involved in the story line know of its actions before they occur. The guild then ethier dissapears or remains domant until needed.
[Edit: Always the damn grammer mistakes lol]
-
Originally posted by Alhana
That is true. However some guilds (like IA) is RP based, that is to say that the people involved in the story line know of its actions before they occur.
That\'s not role-playing. That\'s play-acting.
-
Role-play-acting!!!
They are still playing a role Zanzibar even if it is set out for them.
I see what you mean though.
-
I think that a story line can have a script in roleplaying games, but I think that in a good RPG, you shouldn\'t know what\'s coming. You\'re trying to solve a puzzle, or reach a goal, and you don\'t know whether or not you\'ll achieve it, or how exactly the ending will come about.
To me, RPGs aren\'t about acting out a script.
-
I agree with you, and it is rarely done by script as far as I know.
All the same, it does detract from the RolePlay a bit...
Anyways, Cabal seems to be the winner so far.
-
Overall, I have to agree with Sangwa. As long as everyone is having fun and enjoying the game.
And I dont mean the whole RP is done to script... Christ what kinda fun would that be!.
-
Originally posted by Waylander
Calm down Ylikone, she just doesn\'t want to see the same stuff repeated in the thread...
Sorry if I seem confrontational sometimes. People always accuse me of being pessimistic and blunt. I am.
I try very hard with my Librarian character to be nice (in the game) and I think I\'m doing ok so far. Usually, in these types of games I would be the kind that likes to cause trouble.
I really do appreciate the efforts of Karyuu in moderating the forums, she seems very dedicated.
Also, I want to see more evil guilds in the game. Without sufficient evil in the PS world, I would imagine things get stagnant. More evil please.
-
Originally posted by ylikone
Sorry if I seem confrontational sometimes. People always accuse me of being pessimistic and blunt. I am.
I try very hard with my Librarian character to be nice (in the game) and I think I\'m doing ok so far. Usually, in these types of games I would be the kind that likes to cause trouble.
I really do appreciate the efforts of Karyuu in moderating the forums, she seems very dedicated.
Also, I want to see more evil guilds in the game. Without sufficient evil in the PS world, I would imagine things get stagnant. More evil please.
Holy crap... was anyone else thinking what I was thinking after reading this?
-
I guess announcing when a major event is going to take place so people of the guild can prepare is about the same as an event that takes place that is organized by the RMs. One just have to make sure the end is still open and that you don\'t script what people have to do, becuase then it would indeed hardly be roleplaying for the most part.
What Zan? Sounds like you in the earlier days? ;)
-
Originally posted by zanzibar
Holy crap... was anyone else thinking what I was thinking after reading this?
What?
-
More evil please.
Planeshift\'s setting is supposed to be a realistic (even if fantastic) one. So, it makes little sense to have a side called \"evil\" that grows in quantity each time an evil action takes place.
I think it\'s alot more entertaining to ignore evil and good and let people struggle against each other over interest, greed, ambitions, ideals...
See? There\'s plenty to keep the enviroment dynamic :P
-
Originally posted by Pestilence
I guess announcing when a major event is going to take place so people of the guild can prepare is about the same as an event that takes place that is organized by the RMs. One just have to make sure the end is still open and that you don\'t script what people have to do, becuase then it would indeed hardly be roleplaying for the most part.
What Zan? Sounds like you in the earlier days? ;)
Earlier days?
-
mwa you mellowed a little over time ;)
That or we are getting used to you I guess ;)
-
Originally posted by Pestilence
mwa you mellowed a little over time ;)
That or we are getting used to you I guess ;)
Or option C.
-
Option C: An Off-Topic Option that can only be matched (in off-topicness) by options A and B.
-
Originally posted by Sangwa
Option C: An Off-Topic Option that can only be matched (in off-topicness) by options A and B.
Oh?
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/karyuu/kaoani/Off_Topic_2.gif)
Seriously ;) Back to discussing guilds.