PlaneShift
Gameplay => General Discussion => Topic started by: Zan on May 22, 2006, 09:14:26 am
-
I've been thinking a bit lately, yeah I know bad idea but bear with me :P
There have always been complaints about not having enough evil characters or no roleplaying possibilities for evil characters. When I wander around a bit in-game now though I don't see anything but the wicked. Outlaws, Cult of the Dark Crystal, the Dark Vigilantes, Disciples of Darkness and so on ... I'm not sure where this sudden explosion of evil alligned guilds comes from but there is still something missing. When I'm walking around I see evil names everywhere but no evil doing. For example in the recent player event, Monk created the good guys hugely outnumbered the bad guys.
I think that if everyone really played their role though, Yliakum as we know it would be one scary place to walk around in without an armed escort of twenty men. Until now most people just run along doing the same thing though, since there isn't much you can do in planeshift, maybe that's good for us good guys :D
Anyways I was wondering how everyone else saw the balance between good and evil in the game right now? And what can be done to improve it or work with it? I'll post some more ideas later when I have the time.
-
First you must stop and think what is evil, can you do it in game, I think the answer is no you cant, as you are confined to how you act. i.e. no swearing no upsetting players, both of witch will get you at worst banned. So what can evil do in this game ?
I know its planed , but until it is you cant steal back-stab or murder anyone without there cooperation. You cant do a lot that is considered real evil without the threat of a ban, hence the names sagest bad goings on but in truth you can only be nice and not fear reprisals.
-
There is plenty of bad you can do that is entirely in-character, and I don't see why anyone needs to feel the weight of a ban at their back. OOC swearing is just stupid, anyway ;P People can lie, deceive, manipulate, they can steal and they can murder, even if not as openly as we would like. You have to be a good player at all times - but your character can be the wickedest thing in the world, and it's possible without any help from game mechanics.
-
Swearing is sadly a fact of life, in game it would be reasonable to expect to hear it, so it is not ooc. As for rest would like to hear a few examples please.
P.S. I don't mean real swearwords. for example muddobber.
-
I was referring to real swearwords. Why would a GM ban someone for IC fantasy/medieval swearing? They'd be doing a very bad job as community leaders and wouldn't stick around much longer, in that case. This should be a given by now.
Do you really need examples of IC lying or manipulation? :} You're probably asking for examples of thieving/murder. Well, you can steal things by gaining someone's trust, or taking things they have put onto the ground carelessly, you -can- murder through dueling if you be a good player about it and notify others playing with you of your character's intentions a little in advance. Moreover, you can spread rumours, you can humiliate, you can act in greed and selfishness, and the like.
As always, this must be said to anyone reading: Make sure that if your dealing with new players, they know that you are roleplaying and not simply being cruel.
-
You're probably asking for examples of thieving/murder. Well, you can steal things by gaining someone's trust, or taking things they have put onto the ground carelessly, you -can- murder through dueling if you be a good player about it and notify others playing with you of your character's intentions a little in advance. Moreover, you can spread rumours, you can humiliate, you can act in greed and selfishness, and the like.
As always, this must be said to anyone reading: Make sure that if your dealing with new players, they know that you are roleplaying and not simply being cruel.
With respect that is what I said in my post just put different.
True evil will pray on the week [newbies] true evil will never ask permission to do evil, so i say again you cant be evil in this game, and when theft and back-stab and all the things evil can do is implemented do you real still expect them to ask permission to do it ?
-
Seriously not playing their role. The Outlaws actually sided with good during that war. =|
-
And a dark shadow begged the evil ton invite him in the group :|
-
I am in the Outlaws. The sword I use in most of my fights is one I found on the ground. It is quite powerful, and it's owner begged and begged for its return, nearly in tears explaining how she accidently dropped it and how she needed it back. Though I felt I wasn't *quite* stealing, she proclaimed that I was, and she was completely unreceptive to my attempts to console her...halfhearted though they were. She even tried to challenge me, but I had no time for a sensless and pointless fight. There was nothing to gain from it, even though I sensed I was much stronger than she.
I suppose that good and evil are subjective. I feel I am not evil, otherwise I would have killed her for spite. However, I am far from good and righteous... because had I killed her, I would have had no remorse. In fact, I would likely have laughed. :-*
As far as the Outlaws are concerned, we go with what we percieve holds the greatest gain for us. Good and evil are irrelevant.
-
Good and evil beeing subjective is the result of a successful propaganda. Evil doesn't hesitate over the means to reach its goal, including, for example, oppressing people. Good people may share roughly the same goals, but they will prefer to lost there own life instead of hurting people.
For example, an evil miner will kill other miners for ore while a good one will sacrifice his life to proctect the mine. Thus frame of mind is not mandatory and most people stay neutral about this affairs. Of course they dislike people who could kill them but will save other if they are safe themself.
Now I see a lot of difficulties to play good or evil, good people can be removed from the RP losing there life, and evil ones can be
misunderstood by players or risk to be kicked from the server because of the rules, but it's alway fun when it works well.
-
I am in the Outlaws. The sword I use in most of my fights is one I found on the ground. It is quite powerful, and it's owner begged and begged for its return, nearly in tears explaining how she accidently dropped it and how she needed it back. Though I felt I wasn't *quite* stealing, she proclaimed that I was, and she was completely unreceptive to my attempts to console her...halfhearted though they were. She even tried to challenge me, but I had no time for a sensless and pointless fight. There was nothing to gain from it, even though I sensed I was much stronger than she.
I suppose that good and evil are subjective. I feel I am not evil, otherwise I would have killed her for spite. However, I am far from good and righteous... because had I killed her, I would have had no remorse. In fact, I would likely have laughed. :-*
As far as the Outlaws are concerned, we go with what we percieve holds the greatest gain for us. Good and evil are irrelevant.
Hmm, who are you in the outlaws? I don't remember the name 'Gibbard'....
-
True evil will pray on the week [newbies] true evil will never ask permission to do evil, so i say again you cant be evil in this game, and when theft and back-stab and all the things evil can do is implemented do you real still expect them to ask permission to do it ?
Janner, it's like you're not reading my posts. We have to be good players - and yes that sometimes means telling other players OOC that they should expect this-or-that, and ask if they would like to go along with it. Players who cause grief to newbies are not acceptable. However, characters that have fun interacting with the characters of new players and show them what RP can be like, is great.
Is this really so hard to understand..?
Moreover, thieving and murder is not by any means a requirement for an evil character. Please don't ignore everything else that I have written.
-
If we go by the D&D definitions, then it's impossible to properly play chaotic evil in this game. It's very possible to play lawful or neutral evil though.
-
Being evil is definitely not impossible, nor any more difficult than being good. Simplified all you can do in the game is kill, mine/melt and use supportive/healing magic. Killing/fighting is something inherently 'evil', though rarely seen as such in games because it is the standard thing to do. Mining, melting and in the future crafting would be neutral. And the supportive, especially the healing magic, would be inherently good because you are helping without harming.
Agreeing that the most extensive thing that can be done is fighting and killing you could say that the game favors evil characters over good ones.
Anyways to come back to my points, it is very possible to be evil and not get banned. As a matter of fact I can recall quite a few encounters as Tyrnal with Sezrenade, one of the Outlaws, where he was far from kind to me. He even invaded Akkaio with a fellow outlaw with the intention to find and kill Vaalnor members. All of it was roleplay and I think the player behind Sezrenade is a very fun guy, not evil at all. I have talked to him .. before, during and after the rp events and have nothing against him at all. So there are good evil roleplayers.
-
When I'm walking around I see evil names everywhere but no evil doing. For example in the recent player event, Monk created the good guys hugely outnumbered the bad guys.
i. There were problems with that RP anyway.
ii. You're assuming that all "evil" characters have the same motivation and goals.
iii. Players who RP evil or chaotic characters are usually chastized and ostracized by the community, so there's yet another factor to deal with.
I am in the Outlaws. The sword I use in most of my fights is one I found on the ground. It is quite powerful, and it's owner begged and begged for its return, nearly in tears explaining how she accidently dropped it and how she needed it back. Though I felt I wasn't *quite* stealing, she proclaimed that I was, and she was completely unreceptive to my attempts to console her...halfhearted though they were. She even tried to challenge me, but I had no time for a sensless and pointless fight.
And that's where it goes down hill.
If someone is attacking you, you can /roll for agility to try to escape, but if you're caught in the fight then you have to accept the challenge if you want to maintain the realism of the RP.
-
hmm I agree with Zanzibar on this.
People have to keep in mind that most forms of evil is not caring what happens to others when getting what one wants. Does this mean they are all antigoverment and chaotic? No ofcourse not. They will strive for what is most benificial for them.
A conartist for example might actually like the guards, becuase it prevents the conned people from resorting to violence when they find out they were conned. Also eventhough he is evil he will pretent to be good so the guards believe him when he says he did no such thing.
-
hmm I agree with Zanzibar on this.
People have to keep in mind that most forms of evil is not caring what happens to others when getting what one wants. Does this mean they are all antigoverment and chaotic? No ofcourse not. They will strive for what is most benificial for them.
A conartist for example might actually like the guards, becuase it prevents the conned people from resorting to violence when they find out they were conned. Also eventhough he is evil he will pretent to be good so the guards believe him when he says he did no such thing.
Well, "evil" is subjective. To some people, evil is anything that's different. To others, evil means anything not dictated by God. To others, it means wearing white after labour day. Means different things to different people.
-
it IS possible to be evil, maybe some of you already met me in game calling you some funny names as the insulting fenki ninya ;D
one of my favourites are.
"then how did you get that ugly you bootlicker!"
-
People have to keep in mind that most forms of evil is not caring what happens to others when getting what one wants. Does this mean they are all antigoverment and chaotic? No ofcourse not. They will strive for what is most benificial for them.
That sums it up nice. In-game there is the ability to remove items points from players so if you are caught stealing and wont give it up it can be removed, so why be nice to a player , excuse me i wont to role-play a thief give me all you tria belongings, BORING . IF you are going to play evil and the game wants you to be evil be evil, don't be nice about it.
You are trying to build a realistic game BE realistic, so feelings get hurt so people moan and complain good that means at least someone is trying to do it right.
My wife's reasons for not playing anymore; she joined the game not really knowing what to expect, but found it very boring no PvP no real attempts at doing bad, the emphasis seems to be on keeping every one happy.
A quote from players guide chapter 3. Setting and Background.
Our objective is to create a persistent world in a fantasy setting, in which every player will create his character and will be able to live, explore, and interact with maximum realism.
To my mind maximum realism does not mean watching what you say and asking permission to steal and murder etc.
-
Complete realism in a game is a silly thing to want, it's a game. If you want everything to be real allow everyone to make one character and when that character dies ... well you can go find another game. Then things are real and then everyone will think twice about fighting, stealing and murdering.
I think if the game leaves too much room to be evil that the balance, which I wanted to discuss in this topic not the ability to roleplay evil, will most definitely tip towards the bad guys. In the real world we can't be evil without repercussions ... so lets do it in Planeshift!
-
Janner, I think the game you may be looking for is called Life ;}
To my mind maximum realism does not mean watching what you say and asking permission to steal and murder etc.
Maximum realism is a goal. Just like player housing is a goal, and maps, and flying mounts, and Nolthrir cities. And what do you mean by "watching what you say"? Don't swear in an OOC manner, but what's wrong with anything else?
We are aiming for a fun time for all players. Feelings of characters can be hurt, but not players, because then someone is not having fun.
Are you too a person who is bothered by PlaneShift's current stage of development, after all your time of being here, Janner? People should be adjusted to it by now, and instead of complaining about all the things they -can't- do, find alternative ways of doing them in the meantime :] And there are ways. Whether you like them or not does not influence the fact that they can be done.
-
I think another really important point is that the characters are neither completely good or bad, if either at all. Some of the most interesting and supportive characters I've met have been evil. Some of the "good" characters I've met have been incredibly mean and wicked. I think that if you want to judge a character, there are better criteria to look at.
-
Janner, I think the game you may be looking for is called Life ;}
To my mind maximum realism does not mean watching what you say and asking permission to steal and murder etc.
Maximum realism is a goal. Just like player housing is a goal, and maps, and flying mounts, and Nolthrir cities. And what do you mean by "watching what you say"? Don't swear in an OOC manner, but what's wrong with anything else?
We are aiming for a fun time for all players. Feelings of characters can be hurt, but not players, because then someone is not having fun.
Are you too a person who is bothered by PlaneShift's current stage of development, after all your time of being here, Janner? People should be adjusted to it by now, and instead of complaining about all the things they -can't- do, find alternative ways of doing them in the meantime :] And there are ways. Whether you like them or not does not influence the fact that they can be done.
I have a life thank you.
You very much have to be very careful what you say, when i left the game it was because i was upset at the way a player was behaving. as you know i sent you a PM, and complained to various times to a GM about his behavior. All to no avail. so i left and lost my guild and had to completely restart from scratch, this i have done, another example is i was having a heated discussion with a ex guild member in tells and to my surprise a GM spoke and said this is bordering on harassment, i later checked with a GM if a complaint had been put in against me , and guess what no complaint? So it is obvious to me that rules mean nothing to most and what the guide says is for the long and distant future.
All that is behind me and no i am not complaining of the rate of development, I am pointing out that IF there were a bit more realism there would be a lot more scope for better evil play and by the way good as well.
I also would really like to have some examples as i am trying to play a Bad character at times and i really have no idea how to do it short of getting banned every time i try.
-
I have a life thank you.
I don't think anyone suggested that you don't have a life.
You very much have to be very careful what you say, when i left the game it was because i was upset at the way a player was behaving.
If you're so sensitive, then maybe you should do the responsible thing and leave before a problem developes? I'm not sure what the issue is with what Karyuu or anyone else has said.
as you know i sent you a PM, and complained to various times to a GM about his behavior. All to no avail. so i left and lost my guild and had to completely restart from scratch, this i have done, another example is i was having a heated discussion with a ex guild member in tells and to my surprise a GM spoke and said this is bordering on harassment, i later checked with a GM if a complaint had been put in against me , and guess what no complaint? So it is obvious to me that rules mean nothing to most and what the guide says is for the long and distant future.
It sounds like in both of those cases, there's more than one side of the story to be aware of. If the GMs thought that your complaints weren't valid, then there was probably a reason for it. If a GM thought you were bordering on harassment, there was probably a reason for it. In either case, I don't see what it has to do with this thread.
And it was your choice to dissolve your guild rather than appoint a new leader. No one forced you to get rid of it.
All that is behind me and no i am not complaining of the rate of development, I am pointing out that IF there were a bit more realism there would be a lot more scope for better evil play and by the way good as well.
I would agree with that. It's tough to keep things real yet still protect against griefing.
I also would really like to have some examples as i am trying to play a Bad character at times and i really have no idea how to do it short of getting banned every time i try.
There are a number of threads on how to RP "evil" characters. I agree with you that there needs to be more freedom in the game for such things, but the devs recognize that they have to be really careful in how they go about doing it. I think that guildwars might be pretty much all we have in terms of mechanics - the rest is mostly chatting.
-
I wasn't suggesting that you don't have a life. No need to be so defensive, Janner :} No harm done.
I don't quite remember any PM from you concerning the behavior of one of your guild members - you could have sent it to someone else... But I too could be mistaken and if so I'm really sorry. But what does this have to do with roleplaying an evil character? /tells are completely OOC unless specifically marked as IC, first of all. There is a point where roleplaying may not be clear as such - but OOC arguments do not make for IC evil characters.. Your story is a little confusing in that regard.
This thread is not about IFs - it's about what is currently possible and how players are dealing with limitations or hiding them with their roleplay, which is very possible afterall. Some ideas have been offered here already, and I'm sure more will come.
-
Complete realism in a game is a silly thing to want, it's a game. If you want everything to be real allow everyone to make one character and when that character dies ... well you can go find another game. Then things are real and then everyone will think twice about fighting, stealing and murdering.
I think if the game leaves too much room to be evil that the balance, which I wanted to discuss in this topic not the ability to roleplay evil, will most definitely tip towards the bad guys. In the real world we can't be evil without repercussions ... so lets do it in Planeshift!
hmm Zan has a point ofcourse that realism is hard to get becuase people just don't act like they really would if they were really in that situation. We already had many threads about that death shouldn't mean the same in PS if you would really just walk out of the deathrealm. People are already killing themselves as a shortcut to avoid the Hydlaa-Akkaio route. Not very realistic to have suicides near Harnquist. :P
It's simply impossible to have the same consequences as in RL and so people will take advantage of things. For example in some games PvP is very widespread. At one point dueling was also very happening on the plaza. But would people really do that as much if the consequence might be real death when someone finds you out?
-
Simply put, you cannot RP an evil character with most folks. They do not wish to lost their money, their pride, or their life. Playing a good character is easy, because if you don't wish to RP with someone who is trying to be evil, you can just ignore them. You are still 'good'. Bad RP, but true.
However, if you are on the flip side, and try to RP an evil char and get ignored, guess what? You aren't evil. By being ignored, your character is reduced to nothing. It also does not help with the good always wins attitude. Playing an evil/bad character is a two sided thing. If it is only on your side, you are considered a spammer by those who are playing 'good' characters.
Now, I have a character I consider bad (not evil). He is a thief, and will steal from his own grandmother. He will lie and smile in your face in the nicest manner while cutting your purse. He is not a killer, however. In character description, I gave his looks and apparent attitude. I then went on to state in all CAPs "THE FOLLOWING IS OUT OF CHARACTER. YOUR CHARACTER WILL NOT KNOW THIS" followed by my stating that he is a very good thief and has never yet been caught. I explained exactly how I wished to RP this character, and how to deal with him.
One of the first people I met was someone I considered a good RPer, and had never met with this character before. The first thing he did was eye me warily. The second was to tell his comrade to keep an eye on me, that I could not be trusted. I asked ooc why he would say that. My answer was that he had been around for over a thousand years and saw me a few times before, noticing things vanishing after I left. My session of RP ended right there.
In conclusion, you are only as evil as others let you be. Good characters can rely on game mechanics, bad characters have to rely on other people.
-
Good characters don't even have to rely on game mechanics. As long as you hate people who are supposedly evil, you get counted as good.
-
Exactly Zanz! Good and bad are only seen relative to eachother, the good ones hate the bad guys and the bad people want to do nothing more than pester the good guys. They are alignments, not always character traits.
By the way UtM I think it is possible to play an evil character without having to count on people's ooc co-operation. It's not as easy, especially not for a thief, but it can be done. I have a sarcastic axe smith who simply takes what he wants from people around Hydlaa. I pick everything that's lying on the ground and I wouldn't mind having up with that character without asking if someone dropped something and he'll take spawns whenever he feels like it and doesn't always feel the need to share them. Last time he interrupted a party by bursting in, helping himself to some food and drinks and leaving again a bit later .. without knowing anyone there or knowing what the party was for. So far I haven't had to ask another character's permission to do anything yet.
This is a rather recent experiment though so I'll have to see how it turns out.
-
Exactly Zanz! Good and bad are only seen relative to eachother, the good ones hate the bad guys and the bad people want to do nothing more than pester the good guys. They are alignments, not always character traits.
Actually, a lot of the evil characters I know don't care about pestering anyone. Many of them would rather they weren't noticed at all, it would make their work easier.
-
my character just looks evil, but he is a nice, well spoken fellow, who also RPs getting drunk at kada el. its just his evil looking ynnwn horns and that big black tribal tat on his face.
-
I pick everything that's lying on the ground ......... and he'll take spawns whenever he feels like it and doesn't always feel the need to share them.
Said this before Zan those in my opinion aren't IC actions. The picking up is making use of the gamemechanic that people can't hold you by the arm and take their item back and "taking spawns" is as OOC as it gets as it makes use of the gamemechanic that only one person can attack a monster at a time (exept for a formed group) and that people can't take loot of a monster you killed.
In real life neither would be possible in that way so would consider both a bad example of evil roleplaying, eventhough you might be forced to act that way to stay in character it shouldn't be the foundation of it.[/color]
-
While they are definitely only possible because of the way the game works, I wouldn't say that automatically makes them OOC. It sounds like we both have different definitions of out of character action, your definition being that things which are unrealistic to do in real life are out of character as well. Where I see my character living in a world with rules, not always like real life, that are created by the game and he will use those rules to do harm. If I had to compare my actions to real life, he'd be lifting up purses that are dangling in plain sight, picking up swords people left in the corner of the tavern or something they left on the table whenever they went to the bathroom ... Those are the things I see equivalent to picking up items off the ground and I'll always add some sort of text like that in while I pick them up. Nothing stops the people from trying to get it back, just because there is no direct way of getting the item back doesn't mean I'll just run off an ignore whatever they try.
The spawn taking I agree with since I see spawncamping as a whole as bad roleplaying but everyone does it and it's too popular to just ignore. 90% of the people on PS are spawncamping at most of the times I'm on so if you don't join in, and I haven't for extended periods if time, you're bound to get very lonely.
I do make both types of actions as roleplaying as possible though by expanding on them with text messages so I wouldn't say they are directly out of character per se.
Now it's easy to criticize but how about a better way then? Lets hear some good examples of evil roleplaying according to you, Pestilence :D
-
I think that the game allows for evil roleplay easy enough. Though there has been a lot of discussion about it the guild Dwarvesbane plays evil and everyone knows it. Even good guys participate. Their hate for the bad guy makes them stop and talk to you most of the time. All i need to do to get some evil roleplay is stand still near a few dwarves with my blades bare, Within minutes there are other players around getting involved, protecting the poor dwarves. Its gone so far that i can't actually stand still and have a normal conversation with a dwarf without this happening.
However, implementing options to murder / steal / etc would be nice. Right now you do have to rely on the cooperation of other players to be an evil character. And unfortunately not many players will give it. If you however want to play a murderer like my character then its easy enough. The better players will duel you more often then not. It's just the sneaking up behind someone and stabbing him in the back that isn't possible ( unless its a rigged rp event )
-
True Zan it can be used to roleplay. I think that is a good point. I think an evil person should be able to do those things and a good roleplayer I don't mind it either. Ofcourse that last part should always be added or someone will just use those actions without anything and claim to be roleplaying ;)
I have been thinking about roleplaying evil a bit myself. My character Meriner isn't really dark although a bit darker then when I started playing him. he has his phases ;) (playing for one year is bound to change how you play a character ;) ) Tried things out with alts and been looking up evil people with Meriner to see how they do it. It's hard to find evil people that roleplay well and harder to find people who roleplay it so it's also fun for you ;)
One way I have seen is playing the mugger. Threaten someone for money. It's easy and people will useally respond and it's a situation most people have wondered about how they would react. In my opinion actual dueling should be avoided as much as possible as that kinda ruins the roleplaying. Try using the /roll 20 command for example to see how good your hit was and how good he blocked it. Ofcourse you might want to compare skills in tell to see how much difference there is. Does require some cooperation but roleplaying in the end is a group thing not a solo thing ;)
The dwarvesbane I don't know. It's not like I hate the against dwarf and think the racist card has been way overplayed, but don't really feel it fits in a PS setting whereall the same racegroups aren't that common.
-
Pretty much all "evil" behaviours - no matter how well-intentioned, IC, or legal - will eventually be interpreted by someone as griefing. That is, until it's made into a full-fledge mechanic of the game.
-
Amen brother.
-
Just becuase at some point gamemechanics may allow some stuff in the end it will still be your own behavior that will make people think it's done IC or OOC.
Not saying there aren't people who take offence to anything that bothers them, but those aren't a majority thankfully.
-
Hello,
As you ask, Zan, I will give my opinion. It's not original or new idea : I think it's very very very hard to play evil in-game.
I completly agree with all peoples who are arguing that without murder or steal function it's not possible to be evil.
Why ? Look at my character : Baston. I try to RP it as an evil character who is chaotic by nature but try to be lawfull for various reasons. I have wrote the young age of Baston, he have a very bloody past. I never post it for a simple reason : I can't play Baston's character as I should play it with this story.
A little anecdot : the other day I was wandering on the plaza with Essiri we wanted to fight, just kill for the pleasure of killing (yes evils do that, I'm thinking Baston a bit like the Harkonnen family in Dune : violent and nasty). But I and my character gain no satisfaction killing the weaks for sport so I was searching for characters I know (potential strong fighter). 'till I never look at peoples' description, I couldn't tell what peoples around level was. I finally met Asalya and Illori, and like a could super-evil I asked politely "please miladies will you fight with me ?" the answer was "no". End of the story : the super-evil killer is nice as a sheep... *ironical smiles*
My character have many non-visible activities, but the visible part of his character is to be a killer... In Infidel Slayers their is "Slayers"... Our guild is not designed to slay cucumbers or trees...
He don't care about the laws because the only usefull laws are his owns, if he wants to kill someone he will try.. but no, because the oponent will decline the challenge.
I think you can be evil like somes are : doing nothing but manipulations and complots. That's only a part of evils RP like said UtM :
Simply put, you cannot RP an evil character with most folks. They do not wish to lost their money, their pride, or their life. Playing a good character is easy, because if you don't wish to RP with someone who is trying to be evil, you can just ignore them. You are still 'good'. Bad RP, but true.
However, if you are on the flip side, and try to RP an evil char and get ignored, guess what? You aren't evil. By being ignored, your character is reduced to nothing. It also does not help with the good always wins attitude. Playing an evil/bad character is a two sided thing. If it is only on your side, you are considered a spammer by those who are playing 'good' characters.
Playing evil is hard in fact mainly because "goods" player wants to have an evil char around just when they need to kick a bad guy, otherwise most of them just ignore evils char. I think we could have a "joker" system, wich allow us to free PvP someone and this joker could be used only 3 times a day... Just to make everybody remember than evils are not NPCs ;)
In brief, if I look to the evils definitions of evil I saw before I agree : you can play evil. If I take the D&D definition, like Xordan said, it's just not possible. Stealing food at weddings is not the kind of "evilness" I want for my character...
Insulting someone means you have an interest in insulting him... All evils are not ruffian.. I'm fond of Dracula, that is a true evil : a gentleman killer.
Evil is not only about PvP, steal and back-stab but without it a lot of things are lacking to evil's characters. It's just so frustrating to be forced to stand like an idiot because someone have ignored you... UtM is so true when he said "However, if you are on the flip side, and try to RP an evil char and get ignored, guess what? You aren't evil. By being ignored, your character is reduced to nothing."
Trying to play an evil character since I'm ingame, I think it's just not possible. You can try to looks evil but you can't be evil.
But, of course, the fault is maybe on my side not being able to be a good roleplayer. But not having any alt I concentrate all my eforts on this one... And thinking it's a mess is a little disappointing.
I surely don't think I am perfect ... at least when talking about my RP ;)
-
I understand the problem ... there is one 'solution' I can think of which would work with the current game mechanics, theoretically speaking. Although I'm not sure if it'd work in practice or if it has been done before.
My solution is guild wars. Take the game mechanic out of it's narrowminded War context and instead apply it to strongly alligned combat oriented guilds. If you have a big evil guild and a big good guild, both good roleplaying guilds and both have a large variety of warriors, then why not let those guilds be in a constant state of 'war' with eachother? This will eliminate the need to challenge and does mean one can't escape a fight in any way besides running like hell. Of course it shouldn't be seen as an actual war where both parties would automatically massacre eachother on sight, instead the whole could be used for roleplaying in a more PvP suited environment.
Upside is having a lot more freedom to roleplay, not only for the evil but also for the good/lawful characters, who could actually punish those who break the law.
Downside is that things could seriously get out of hand and players would be in a constant state of war, which is not the intention. Just because it is possible to kill everyone it doesn't mean it should happen. The only way to keep things under control is to have two guilds with many good roleplayers and a very good communication between the guilds and the members.
I'd offer my own guild as the lawful side of this idea but I don't nearly have enough members to make it work sadly. ::)
-
Hhhmm that sounds like a lot of fun Zan :D
Thats the kind of idea that I would actually like to level up for ;)
Although atm killing is to easy with it only taking one hit. Hope they'll improve armor and such so the art of dueling returns :)
-
Zan: "Good" and "Evil" don't cover all possible motivations etc. There are good characters that won't get along, and evil character that will never work together under any circumstances. It's not a black and white roleplaying atmosphere, and I think it's a good thing.
Baston: Good post, but to be frank - tiptoeing around people's emotions takes a lot of energy. What if you don't want to RP someone who's evil but super polite all the time? And still, you're going to end up with people like UTM who roleplayed Hauntt/Untar and almost immediately went OOC in game, on IRC, and on the forums just because he percieved the possibility of someone being disruptive.
I think that there are underlining issues to this discussion which we would need to go into in order for us to be comprehensive, but there simply isn't the time. Fundamentally - people will not be able to roleplay evil well until the game mechanics are there to support it.
-
*shrugs*
I don't think it as being impossible. True being evil without stepping on to many toes needs to be done as a group action, but you seem to forget roleplaying useally should be a groupaction. Playing a loner evil person doesn't mean you have to be a loner as a player.
If you don't want to put the effort in as a player then yes it is impossible and yes it is way harder to play evil then it is to play good, but that simply the way it is. In RL people also go with the flow in a majority of the time.
I can't think of any civilization where anyone could just go and beat anyone else up and it not having consequences. In PS they may differ from in RL but to often evil "roleplaying"is just an exuse for a venting player so it has gotten a bad name.
-
What's up with those negative vibes, Zanzi ... think positive man! :thumbup:
Good and evil are alignments, not character traits ... they are simplifications and generalisations meant to avoid endless discussion and explanation of your character's elaborate personality and goals. The game is indeed not so black and white but lets just stick to good and evil for the sake of less drawn out communication in this discussion. No need to dwell off on every individual direction here.
As for waiting on the game mechanics, be my guest. I won't. I respect the Devs and the loads of work they put into this game in their free time and I am confident that there will be some very nice mechanics that allow easier roleplay of evil, however I'm an impatient one and I like to take initiative. Just because they haven't made it easy for us yet doesn't mean I can't figure out ways to make it doable. You shouldn't underestimate the position that players have within the game mechanics, especially in a project like this. We help shape the world, not to say that we are the Planeshift world.
I made this thread to give a positive contribution to the good-evil relationship and the roleplaying around it, where people can share how they do it and brainstorm over ideas how it could be done or how some problems could be fixed ... so no more saying "it can't be done." without giving your contribution to what can be done ... or I'll have my evil character haunt you until the day that clackers fly! :P
-
Nice point there Pestilence, though i can't quite see how you want to create a society with all people acting good. You seem to forget that a fantasy setting is not at all like our society, it grounds in medeviel times. Times where people thought others to be witches and burned them. Time where leperds were kicked out and forced to live in desolated comunities. Times where "living the rogue" was by far mor common a way to make a living then you seem to accept. Times where christians went on crusades against the mores for being heathens. A time where a king had absolute power over life. A time where the landlord could pick out any girl he liked from his liegemen and have his way with her without having to face difficulties. A time where it was even custom in some part that the landlord would take the bride away from the groom just after the marriage to "bless" it so to say. A time where the only law was the landlord. And a time where the strong always ruled the weaker, in fact a time where you COULD go about and beat someone up without it having to much consequence, you only needed to be strong enough to make the rest fear you.
So there is my point, back in those days there wasn't much civilisation around, you only need to take a closer look at western hystory to see we have evolved from just the civilisation that you have trouble to imagine.
Wich does of course not diminish your point of a lot of so called evil players just being brats that want to vent a little. But then? Just what other reason is there to play any game?
-
*shrugs*
I don't think it as being impossible. True being evil without stepping on to many toes needs to be done as a group action, but you seem to forget roleplaying useally should be a groupaction. Playing a loner evil person doesn't mean you have to be a loner as a player.
*slaps forehead* Now you tell me!
You can't be in a group with the entire PS community. I wander around, I talk to people, I stay in character with people I've never met before. To me, it's a big part of the game - to expose yourself to new things, new characters, and new situations.
I can't think of any civilization where anyone could just go and beat anyone else up and it not having consequences. In PS they may differ from in RL but to often evil "roleplaying"is just an exuse for a venting player so it has gotten a bad name.
I can think of many times in life where I've known someone to beat someone else up without any trouble with the law. Even when police get involved, the police have a tendency to arrest as few people as possible so that it looks like there's less crime in their area.
-
Nice thread :)
Playing evil generally isn't my thing, but I think if I were trying to do this in Planeshift I'd work the fact that dead men and women (and Kran :) ) can and do tell tales here, due to the Death Realm not being a permanent state. Evil is doing what you can get away with, not being stupid. Homicidal maniacs generally don't last long in any society unless they are good at covering their tracks :) Perhaps it can be rationalised that yon city guards are *very* efficient?
I've seen some nice evil RP in the game, including someone insulting and challenging someone they must have known they couldn't beat. That was fun to get involved in, even only peripherally.
I'm not personally that attracted by the PvP side, so from a layperson's perspective the virtual good and evil guilds seems like a good idea to separate out those that are interested in this kind of interaction from those that aren't. Personally, I don't mind someone coming and trying to mug me (for example), provided it's well roleplayed out. I will make them RP their butt off for my horrible stinky newbie rat hides though :)
As for an OOC aside to say it's just RP, that's just good manners to me. Why risk upsetting people OOC when you don't have to?
-
I've seen some nice evil RP in the game, including someone insulting and challenging someone they must have known they couldn't beat. That was fun to get involved in, even only peripherally.
I once attacked someone 20 times in a row, back when I was new, just to show that I don't give up easily.:)
As for an OOC aside to say it's just RP, that's just good manners to me. Why risk upsetting people OOC when you don't have to?
Meh. I find that people who RP "good" characters are far more prone to OOC harassment than any of the players with evil characters as their main. What it comes down to is common sense and decency.
-
(Quote from Zanzibar - if that's wrong, apologies. I'm being forum challenged)
Meh. I find that people who RP "good" characters are far more prone to OOC harassment than any of the players with evil characters as their main. What it comes down to is common sense and decency.
Personally, I've found players in Planeshift lovely so far. I do agree a modicum of common sense is needed - I mean, if a player has RPed with that particular character (or know the character is RPed by a player who knows your character) X million times before, then if they're being a git IC it probably doesn't need an OOC explanation. But if they're RPing with a character who is more of an unknown factor, I don't think it hurts to make it clear any gitty behaviour is IC. And that's true regardless of what "alignment" they're playing, IMHO. (i don't like alignments but that's a rant for another time)
I guess one way round it if players don't want to be bothered by doing tells is to have a little OOC disclaimer in the description (and indeed putting some effort into the description - I saw a fab evil old hag lady dwarf description in game the other day, and it really helped the way I interacted with that character). But in my mind, if players are wanting to engage with another character in RP to enhance their enjoyment of the game, and therefore want them to put time and effort into enhancing their experience, a little aside to check the other players are cool and not upset OOC isn't too much to ask. Certainly it's what I'd do if tabletopping or LARPing, and while this is the first MMORPG I've played I haven't seen that the RP conventions are that different here so far.
-
Nice point there Pestilence, though i can't quite see how you want to create a society with all people acting good. You seem to forget that a fantasy setting is not at all like our society, it grounds in medeviel times. Times where people thought others to be witches and burned them. Time where leperds were kicked out and forced to live in desolated comunities. Times where "living the rogue" was by far mor common a way to make a living then you seem to accept. Times where christians went on crusades against the mores for being heathens. A time where a king had absolute power over life. A time where the landlord could pick out any girl he liked from his liegemen and have his way with her without having to face difficulties. A time where it was even custom in some part that the landlord would take the bride away from the groom just after the marriage to "bless" it so to say. A time where the only law was the landlord. And a time where the strong always ruled the weaker, in fact a time where you COULD go about and beat someone up without it having to much consequence, you only needed to be strong enough to make the rest fear you.
So there is my point, back in those days there wasn't much civilisation around, you only need to take a closer look at western hystory to see we have evolved from just the civilisation that you have trouble to imagine.
Wich does of course not diminish your point of a lot of so called evil players just being brats that want to vent a little. But then? Just what other reason is there to play any game?
I am sorry but I don't agree with that. True Yliakum is a place were technolagy is still in the setting of late medieval times, but if you think of things like the octarchs it's clear socially it's not the same. It's more like with the roman empire would have been like exept the rulers don't seem to be conquerers what would make violence even less common.
And even in the medieval times an evil loner would never have that power. As your examples given those are lords that have the backing of a small army and probably even the church that predicts that the peasants will be rewarded if they just accept things as they are. So to turn that to PS terms that would mean you would have to be the leader of a large and active guild. Burning of witches and throwing out of leppars was a community thing so also that wasn't a loner thing. Being the rogue was perhaps more lonery but even then you would have to be in a group if you wanted to survive for long and I doubt they would scream out their ocupation when visiting a city.
I can think of many times in life where I've known someone to beat someone else up without any trouble with the law. Even when police get involved, the police have a tendency to arrest as few people as possible so that it looks like there's less crime in their area.
If it's just a few bruises the police might not arrest anyone but as soon as broken bones and such are a factor I doubt any police wouldn't take the people in question to the station. I have even seen the police take someone in who threw a brick through someones window for example. IN PS there are plenty of evil characters who do way worse expecting the guards to not even come and break it up if they are standing two feet away. Thats not very realistic even if the guards wouldn't throw him in jail.
-
How good are you in Roman empire history? You are aware that slavery was a very common concept then. Even failure to pay a bill would result in you becomming a slave to the one you owned money to. Add the Gladiator games to that. Games where people killed other people for the amusement of the crowds. Or had to fight lions, snakes and other dangerous animals unarmed for that same crowd. A culture where the raised or dropped thumb of the empire decided life. And also a culture with a lot more violence on the streets. Most poor people had a patron "protecting" them. They would get money from that guy, and protection against robbers and the like in return for loyalty. ( votes for senate positions, carying stuff for the guy, cleaning his house, simply just being there for him when he needed you ) Have you ever seen the movies "The Godfather"? the maffia came up with that concept based upon the patron thing the romans had going. ( not strange as the roman culture originated from the same region as the maffia has its roots in. ) Hardly a crime free and non violent community that...
-
I can think of many times in life where I've known someone to beat someone else up without any trouble with the law. Even when police get involved, the police have a tendency to arrest as few people as possible so that it looks like there's less crime in their area.
If it's just a few bruises the police might not arrest anyone but as soon as broken bones and such are a factor I doubt any police wouldn't take the people in question to the station. I have even seen the police take someone in who threw a brick through someones window for example. IN PS there are plenty of evil characters who do way worse expecting the guards to not even come and break it up if they are standing two feet away. Thats not very realistic even if the guards wouldn't throw him in jail.
Yeah, well if a girl being thrown onto the hood of a car and being hit in the stomach with a baseball bat doesn't count... a brick through a window is property damage, which means people over 30 or a small business being affected, so it's different.
-
*laughs*
You do have to read my posts if you want to comment on them Sardit
I didn't say Roman culture was a good example of a non-violent civilization. I only pointed out you would atleast have to look at a more civilized time like with the romans for example instead of a medieval time and that therefor the medieval arguments don't stick. That doesn't mean that the roman culture does stick becuase romans were known for their military domination and hence violence and the feeling they were above others.
But again the examples you give are things like gladiator games wich are community driven (and the fights were only to the death on grand events and those were criminals who tried to get out of heir sentence that way useally or ofcourse captured enemy warriors so not just anyone) and senators who are the ones who have power and have position and so they aren't just anyone either. You have to have a lot of power before you can do such things or atleast the backing of someone who has.
But you also forget to mention that in the roman empire the punishment for criminals was also severe. If you were caught stealing or if you killed someone you would lose one of your hands or would be thrown for the lions.
As for Zanzibar. Get a life. Again you come with some strange example without telling anything about it trying to kill the discusion. This is a place to have a discusion for the sake of Planeshift not to try and "score" by silencing the other no matter if you are right or not. Come with some arguments and examples that we can discus.
-
As for Zanzibar. Get a life. Again you come with some strange example without telling anything about it trying to kill the discusion. This is a place to have a discusion for the sake of Planeshift not to try and "score" by silencing the other no matter if you are right or not. Come with some arguments and examples that we can discus.
Trying to kill the discussion? Get a life? Why don't you take a chill pill, genius? [removed by admins for bad language.] I'm not trying to silence ANYTHING. I'm PROVING that something else I said is TRUE. [removed by admins for bad language.]
-
A. The police came and stopped it so there is a concequence. A consequence doesn't have to be jail right away. Plus I would think that the persons who did that would still have to appear in court and then be sentenced.
B. You didn't give any details and that is a habit of yours. You don't put it in any context so someone else has no idea what you are talking about so he can't respond. I have also seen you do this in other threads and very often later in the thread you add the details only to disproof a person who tries to repond with the little info you gave. If this happened once or twice it wouln't be a problem but as I said it seems to be a habit and then yes I feel it's becoming an intentional way to win or atleast get an unfair advantage in a discusion and it normally does no good at all for the discusions quality.
-
A. The police came and stopped it so there is a concequence. A consequence doesn't have to be jail right away. Plus I would think that the persons who did that would still have to appear in court and then be sentenced.
B. You didn't give any details and that is a habit of yours. You don't put it in any context so someone else has no idea what you are talking about so he can't respond. I have also seen you do this in other threads and very often later in the thread you add the details only to disproof a person who tries to repond with the little info you gave. If this happened once or twice it wouln't be a problem but as I said it seems to be a habit and then yes I feel it's becoming an intentional way to win or atleast get an unfair advantage in a discusion and it normally does no good at all for the discusions quality.
It was in context, all you had to do was look at what I was replying to. This is so typical of you. What, you think that if you repeat a lie enough times it will suddenly be true?
-
Please be civil or I will be forced to lock this thread.
-
*laughs*
You do have to read my posts if you want to comment on them Sardit
I didn't say Roman culture was a good example of a non-violent civilization. I only pointed out you would atleast have to look at a more civilized time like with the romans for example instead of a medieval time and that therefor the medieval arguments don't stick. That doesn't mean that the roman culture does stick becuase romans were known for their military domination and hence violence and the feeling they were above others.
Missed that detail, you're right
But again the examples you give are things like gladiator games wich are community driven (and the fights were only to the death on grand events and those were criminals who tried to get out of heir sentence that way useally or ofcourse captured enemy warriors so not just anyone) and senators who are the ones who have power and have position and so they aren't just anyone either. You have to have a lot of power before you can do such things or atleast the backing of someone who has.
I don't quite agree on this point, The events portraited were community driven in a way, but you neglect to regard that these events were forced upon the community. Also, slaves were very commonly used as gladiators, and unlike you say these games were always to the death. It was forbidden to the gladiator to kill in most games, but after it was finished the emperor would give a verdict ( Ceasar's raised or dropped thumb )
But you also forget to mention that in the roman empire the punishment for criminals was also severe. If you were caught stealing or if you killed someone you would lose one of your hands or would be thrown for the lions.
Wich is true, but death was not among them. Maiming, branding and put into slavery ( agreed going to the salt mines was a certain death aswell, and you could also be sent to the arena { thrown in front of the lions } but in all cases you had a fighting chance, slim but a chance. )
Hence my point, evil was around in similar forms as it is in planeshift. There is no mechanic to beat someone up on the plazaa. So that won't happen. But a duel can be fought there as it happened in those times. You could stumble across a duel in plenty of civilisations. So back to the topic, since some people in planeshift refuse to accept certain aspects as being "real" it is far harder to play a villain ( lacking game mechanics to use ) then it could be. To repeat underthemoons statement. If you are playing evil and are being ignored, you are reduced to nothing. That behaviour from the good guys should stop. At least try to do some rp with evil persons. give a /shout for help for all i care but do give a reaction instead of consequentely ignoring everybody that might be evil. Its just as unrealistik to say to a guy you know to be evil " I don't want to talk to you, take your attitude and shoo !" Especially if you are so weak i'd kill you in one stroke using training daggers. Unfortunately since there is no PvP in Planeshift people CAN react like that, and to my regret a lot of players do that.
-
Well I do agree things like beating up should be possible and at the moment RP wise it would be possible in my opinion. Although ofcourse I would have to believe the character in question had the skill to do that ;)
But I do feel that an evil person who RPs would have to do this with things like the guards in mind and how plosible you would be able to do this without interferance. I have had someone mutible times try to start a fight while at the gate with guards just a few feet away. I think noone disagrees that evil should be possible it's only that the problem with putting it in gamemechanics is that it will cause OOC misuse more then that it will add to the RP unless you have a good way to prevent that and thats the tricky part ;)
As for the duels. Duels in the arena were very often not to the death. You had profesional gladiators that were hero's where their blood and sweat were even sold of and those did not fight to the death unless in special events. Also the thumbs up or down is most likely a myth. The highest person there useally did give signal but historian are pretty sure it was probably a thumb to the throat to show one would die. A lot of the arena has been made worse in the movies so don't believe everything you see there ;)
-
If you are playing evil and are being ignored, you are reduced to nothing.
That's true for good characters as well. It's true for pretty much everyone. To stay with Under the Moon as an example: When he went in game as Haunt, one of the first things he did was make a point of walking through my character repeatedly in order to attract attention. Attention is not only important for evil characters.
-
Actually my source is roman writings i studied latin and had to translate that stuff.
-
You make a good point, Zanzi ... being ignored is something which good characters have to live with just as well. I've especially noticed this with my guard character. It's his job to uphold the law but he can't do anything but beg someone's ears off to stop breaking it, if the other one won't co-operate at all.
I think a second problem is the quick returns from the death realm and usually when two characters have had their differences 'settled' by sending one of them to that place, the fight continues as soon as the loser returns from the land of the dead. I'm confident that this problem will become less and less apparent when the Death Realm is expanded and becomes even harder to get out of.
Personally I always stay away from the area where I was defeated for a while or at least admit my defeat and leave the other one alone unless he doesn't want to be left alone. Even when I've been defeated in an unfair way or through sheer bad luck and I know I could easily go back and kill the other one. I don't like it when others act like death is nothing but an unasked for teleportation, so I make a point not to do it with others either.
-
hmm so the experts from the discovery channel are all wrong? Now that is interesting.
Anyhow we are getting awfully of topic as the roman empire isn't the main topic here. Point is with their militaristic character they aren't a good template to build planeshift on unless the history would be made a lot more violent. So further discusion on how violent exactly it was wouldn't help ;)
I know ignoring is a problem. Thats why I am afraid of misuse of gamemechanics. Like for example the picking up. If it's roleplayed well and you give them a chance to get it back it wouldm't be to bad, but there are plenty who just go like "Muhahaha" and run away ignoring the person. Thats also part of what I mam saying with the guards. The gamemechanics aren't so far that the guards do anything so evil persons sometimes just ignore they are standing next to one when wanting to kill someone.
Ofcourse good or neutral people are guilty of this aswell and in the beginning it was one of my biggest frustration that there wasn't a DM telling people they were being silly. Like for example Meriner at one point believed a fenki was spawn from the deathrealm and had to be vanquished. The roleplaying was very nice till we roleplayed a fight. She claimed to dodge every single of my attacks with ease and this was before the last wipe and so I was fully maxed back then. I didn't think it was enough to make a deal out of it but that is kinda annoying becuase unless of godly intervention or anything that would just not be realistic.
-
Anyhow we are getting awfully of topic as the roman empire isn't the main topic here. Point is with their militaristic character they aren't a good template to build planeshift on unless the history would be made a lot more violent. So further discusion on how violent exactly it was wouldn't help ;)
The Romans were one violent civilization among many. Just look at the past 100 years of war, or colonialism, or the inquisitions, or the crusades, or this that and the other thing.
-
Zanzibar is right the Romans were mearly one violent civilization among many. They were also the least violent of the ancient world. Hell there are few civilizations in todays world that have a less violent society than the Romans. So they make an execelent template (especialy since we already have an arena). Look this is a fantasy world; we can leave out the stuff we don't like such as slavery (it wasn't seen as an evil during Roman times it was simply the norm).
As for ignoreing another player because you don't want to roleplay with someone who plays an evil charecter. Well guess what Zanzibar was right when he said that those who roleplay good were often the first to speak out of character. Of course this does not mean that they were the first to be out of character. Many less than scrupulus players have preformed some less than scrupulus acts simply because the people they were trying to roleplay with chose to ignore them.
-
They were also the least violent of the ancient world. Hell there are few civilizations in todays world that have a less violent society than the Romans
Exuse me? They razed entire cities for oposing them and conquered the whole mediteranean and imposed their rule on people. Not to mention that making career in Rome useally ment going into the army first. Just think of how Caesar started. This ment a war every time someone ambitious wanted to gain power.
Now not saying everything is fine and dandy right now and that democracy is perfect but to say it's more violent then the roman culture is simply not true. That are wars are more destuctive is true but that doesn't mean there is more violence, just that it has more influence becuase of it's devastating effects.
-
I'm sure you're all right one way or another, Rome was a huge empire with many many different people living under it's rule. They have been there for many decades so I'm certain that there were very peaceful years as well as violent years filled with war. It's hard to pinpoint a single trait onto an empire that large and that old, besides I don't really get the relevance with Yliakum.
Yliakum will develope its own culture depending on how we, the players, act.
-
Pestilence stop colouring your perceptions with modern concepts. Then go and compare Rome with some of the groops from the same general time period. Before we have Egypt, Persia, Macedonia, Greece. After you have The Hunic empire, Persia (again) the Holy Roman empire, The Mongol Empire. Groups that existed at the same time (and were often conqured by) Rome were the Visigoths and Ostrogoths, The Germanians, The Anglos, The Saxons, the Galls. In truth the two primary reasons for Roman expansion were defence and wealth. O and Julias Ceaser started out as a Priest of Jupiter and even attained the rank of High Priest before his ambitions took him to the army.
Next lets compare Rome to modern and relativly modern civilizations such as the former Soviet Union, early comunist China, the many nations of central and south Africa, Cuba, the many nations of central and south America. "Rome was certainly barbaric by modern standards" (sarcasm)
Yes Zan; Yliakum will develop it's own unique civilization over time. However when comparing to real world civilzations Rome is by far the closest candidate. I think we all need to learn to take into acount that this is our world and it will deveolpe acording to how we behave within it. We also need to take into acount that as of yet we have nothing of what it will be except for a very great deal of preconcived notions.
-
Zanzibar is right the Romans were mearly one violent civilization among many. They were also the least violent of the ancient world. Hell there are few civilizations in todays world that have a less violent society than the Romans. So they make an execelent template (especialy since we already have an arena). Look this is a fantasy world; we can leave out the stuff we don't like such as slavery (it wasn't seen as an evil during Roman times it was simply the norm).
As for ignoreing another player because you don't want to roleplay with someone who plays an evil charecter. Well guess what Zanzibar was right when he said that those who roleplay good were often the first to speak out of character. Of course this does not mean that they were the first to be out of character. Many less than scrupulus players have preformed some less than scrupulus acts simply because the people they were trying to roleplay with chose to ignore them.
I have a theory on why it happens:
People who roleplay good characters tend to be self righteous.
People who roleplay evil characters tend to be openminded.
-
Hatchnet first of don't tell me what to do. I respect that it's your opinion even if I don't agree with it and I would hope you would do the same.
I don't believe violence has anything to do with "modern concept". Was that timepriod a very violent time? Thats not a very good argument to say the romans were not. Anyhow looking at those other civilizations I think the romans definately aren't coming out better. The macedonians for example did conquer but they absorbed the cultures of the conquered terrotories making the battles a lot more political of who was the ruler then with the romans as they imposed not only themselves as rulers but also imposed their culture in many areas.
And Julius Ceasar was a priest? Like I didn't know that, but who is coloring this with modern concepts now? the priesthood he had was a title and a way to get power just as his fame as a general was. If anything it proves that the roman culture was more violent becuase there were no eyebrows lifted for a priest to lead armies to war where in most civilizations that you named it would have.
But tell me this. What reason is there for the Yliakum civilization to be as violent as the romans? In the romans case there was the fact of how they started out and the fact politicians had to have served in the military to have any weight and the many other violent civilizations in that timeperiod and the constant risk of uprisings against them.
But in Yliakum there is no other civilization. There is no strife between the races so uprisings like that don't happen either so where would the strife be coming frm then? The monsters outside the city? Well if they were a thread I would imagineto turn against eachother to be even more of a crime as communities tend to became more tight in hardships instead of turning on eachother
-
Pestilence you realy should stop posting about Rome and Roman culture as it is made painfully obvious by your last post that you actualy know very little about it. And yes you are colouring your perceptions of Rome with your own perceptions of right and wrong.
This statement proves both points quite dramaticly
And Julius Ceasar was a priest? Like I didn't know that, but who is coloring this with modern concepts now? the priesthood he had was a title and a way to get power just as his fame as a general was. If anything it proves that the roman culture was more violent becuase there were no eyebrows lifted for a priest to lead armies to war where in most civilizations that you named it would have.
-
He has a point...he wasn't a priest in any way. I don't know much about this at all, but I can tell you right now he wasn't a priest.
-
He has a point...he wasn't a priest in any way. I don't know much about this at all, but I can tell you right now he wasn't a priest.
Actualy he was. In fact Ceaser's father paid a hefty sum of money so that he could enter the priesthood early on instead of have to imediatly join the army for two years when he came of age. Ceaser was in his thirtys when he moved from the Priesthood of Jupiter to the army and lost almost everything his position within the priesthood had afforded him; includeing his recognition as a Priest of Jupiter.
-
/me grins "i agree that the roman empire would be a nice template, but if you go back enough in time ANY civilisation sprouted from a militaristic violent period."
Hence imho Planeshift might be a bit more violent without people thinking it unrealistic aswell.
But back to the topic, Playing evil isn't easy, and since people can always ignore / roleplay badly / refuse to cooperate at all. It won't get any easier. A good thing would be if all mediocre to decent players would participate even if they are busy with something else. Proglin and his guild have been trying to put up a tournament for a while now, but everytime one of those dwarves meets Dwarvesbane members they are dragged into a roleplay or a duel wich interferes with their business. Proglin told me it begins to annoy them, but my point in this is, that even though they DONT have the time or the interest in a roleplay going that direction. Almost every single one of them FOLLOWS the lead and gets involved. I know its hard to do and keep doing but i thank them for it. If every half decent player would follow their example then the community would benefit greatly from it.
Hell i know its annoying to be training some skill in the arena when someone walks up to you and starts a roleplay. Especially if it ends in you getting killed and having to walk all the way back there. But i think that that is exactely what the developement team had in mind when creating this game. If you are any decent roleplayer you can usually roleplay your way right out of it anyhow. And if the other fellow is persistent then usually they aren't that far trained anyhow wich means you'll probably kill them in a duel without much effort. In my experience anyone that has played PS some time will respect your wishes and leave you alone if you indicate that you are busy. But the simple ignoring people makes it a lot more difficult for anyone to roleplay in this game. It doesn't take much time to have a quick IC chat anyway. So if everyone just starts to behave more IC even when their mind is not set in that direction i think that the whole problem would be a lot less of a problem.
-
He has a point...he wasn't a priest in any way. I don't know much about this at all, but I can tell you right now he wasn't a priest.
Actualy he was. In fact Ceaser's father paid a hefty sum of money so that he could enter the priesthood early on instead of have to imediatly join the army for two years when he came of age. Ceaser was in his thirtys when he moved from the Priesthood of Jupiter to the army and lost almost everything his position within the priesthood had afforded him; includeing his recognition as a Priest of Jupiter.
Well I thought the pope was the only priest around that time, due to heavy catholism and muslims. But, maybe I'm thinking of the wrong years...anyway, like I said, I don't know much about Rome, but I never thought he was a priest, just more of a leader.
-
Well I thought the pope was the only priest around that time, due to heavy catholism and muslims. But, maybe I'm thinking of the wrong years...anyway, like I said, I don't know much about Rome, but I never thought he was a priest, just more of a leader.
Suno,
There was no Pope around at the same time than Caesar. Gaius Julius Caesar was born at 100 BC and died in 44 BC. There were no Christians nor Muslims either. Jesus Christ was born 44 years after the death of Caesar and Islam was invented almost 700 years later.
-
lol, nice, you do know that the roman empire excisted around the time that christianity was invented? Remember the "Priests" that sent Jesus to the cross, they were roman priests :P
I think the emperor after Ceasar was the one that did that, i'm pretty sure that Ceasar wasnt the one. Though he has a series of letters concerning christians with some other fellow, can't remember who, but they were part of my final examn and Ceasar was our main author for my finals.
-
Hatchnet your nitpicking now. I know aswell that he lost much of his official standing with the priesthood when he left, but just becuase you lose the title will not just change how people look at you. People aparently didn't think it strange as a career move. And if you really know as much of Rome as you seem to say you do you will also know the temple's role when Caesar had the city showing that in a lot of ways his influence within it wasn't as gone as you imply.
Anyhow back on topic. You seem to somehow seem to have forgotten to answer my question. Rome had many factors that caused it's violence. Factors I don't see in Yliakum.
I agree that violence is possible to appear in Yliakum seeing much has not been told in how it is organized and such, but to have violence the scale some seem to want one would need factors that cause it beyond an evil guild. I have said myself the octarch rule of all the planes and no interracetension isn't really realistic but that is the setting the devs have chosen and you can't just step out of that becuase you don't like that.
-
from the main site history the only violance present is from the hordes that invade yiliakum from the bronze doors, maybe in the future there will be a option to join that faction?
also noted in there says there is no knowledge of interracional conflicts
-
I didn't vote for the octarchs, lets over throw them and begin a revolution :P
Come on, if we take the setting literally then a lot of stuff that anyone does isn't right. Remember that whole deal with the mouth? it isn't realistic then as there is nothing in the setting that says that it plays the role we gave it.
-
Ok, ok, I have no idea about time periods. =P
I knew it was somewhere around there, but not 700 years...I figured about 150 at the most. =/
-
from the main site history the only violance present is from the hordes that invade yiliakum from the bronze doors, maybe in the future there will be a option to join that faction?
also noted in there says there is no knowledge of interracional conflicts
You know we've already moved well away from what the main site history says. Besides interatial conflicts are the kinds of things that can start from one person haveing a distaste for dwarves, an enki holding all humans responsible for the ones/s that raped it's mother, or an elf feeling that the diaboli should be destroyed because they are the "spawn of the devil". Realy all natural things for certain types of people.
-
from the main site history the only violance present is from the hordes that invade yiliakum from the bronze doors, maybe in the future there will be a option to join that faction?
also noted in there says there is no knowledge of interracional conflicts
You know we've already moved well away from what the main site history says. Besides interatial conflicts are the kinds of things that can start from one person haveing a distaste for dwarves, an enki holding all humans responsible for the ones/s that raped it's mother, or an elf feeling that the diaboli should be destroyed because they are the "spawn of the devil". Realy all natural things for certain types of people.
To me, those things are just examples of bad roleplaying and therefore don't count. If you're operating outside of the settings, then you're out of character.
In my humble opinion.
-
What are the settings Zanzibar? Just because they say that there is no record of inter racial conflict does not mean that it has not, or can not happen. As I said sometimes certain people will have an experiance that causes them to dislike or have an affinity for someone of another race. That, belive it or not, is how racial conflicts start.
-
It doesn't say anything about the setting how a mouth is used, but if the setting would say in Yliakum we only use it to eat becuase we are all telepathic that is the setting.
An yes we can influence the world by our actions, but roleplaying is what? It's playing that you are part of the Planeshiift world. That you try to act as close to what someone who would be in that world for real would act like. So if the setting says something you can't just ignore it. You have to integrate it into your story. And yes I was oposed to the dwarvesbane guild for this reason aswell.
-
What are the settings Zanzibar? Just because they say that there is no record of inter racial conflict does not mean that it has not, or can not happen.
Not to intrude in on your little conversation, but I have just a quick interjection.
"The city of Yliakum is a melting pot of races with different culture and origin, mixed and integrated by living together over the centuries. Racial suspicion and hostility are completely unknown, given that the greater part of people belonging to one race is normally married to someone of another race." Taken from: http://www.planeshift.it/guide/en/setting-races.html
The key words here are: "Racial suspicion and hostility are completely unknown" as in they either don't happen, or that which does happen, goes on behind the scenes. To me anyway, I see Zanzi's point quite clearly. The settings dictate that there shouldn't be a dravesbane, at least not openly. I am not for or against it nor am I for or against any of the other RP events that unfold in game, just so as long as someones RP does not tell me how I need to RP my characters.
We are player testers. Not only do we test the game mechanics, but we also RP, testing out the player to player interactions, what is good for the community, what is bad, what enriches the game, what takes away from it. By doing so, the devs observe how the community in the game grows, evolves, matures, and they can then use this to better shape the game through its mechanics to not only drive the game from a technical standpoint of where they want it to go, but also from the more important side, the community that makes up the game.
Whether you agree or not with what the dravesbane guild is doing, what the so called evil players try to do, what Xillix did when she annouced herself to be octarch, all these events are equally important in the bigger picture. Each event shows the community what is good, or bad, what the game is ready to handle, or what it isn't. All these events are equally important in the larger developement of the game. They shape the direction of the game. They show what can be done, what can't be done, what should, and what shouldn't be done, either right now with the current abilities of the game itself, or what can't ever be done in the game, or at least not until quite a distant furture.
Each of the above given examples are just that, examples. If anyone wishes to discuss the legallity of them, whether you agree or not with them, they each have thier own threads devoted to that subject. This thread, is subjected towards the ability of players to "evil" or not. Going off of that then, as it has been said, the idea of being evil in game is fairly limited. But one must look at where the game is at in its developement. With a more fully developed game, the ways to be "evil" will become easier. It doesn't have to be just PvP "evil" either. RPing evil can be done just as well against npcs. Ultimately, the game mechanics will improve and players will have more abilities, skills, etc, to put forth to accomplish whatever type of character they so desire.
As for this stage of developement however, I think many people need to take a step back a bit, think about what they are saying, stop treating this game as a completed project and just go with the flow of things. Play with in the limited game mechanics given to you. If someone sets something down and someone runs off with it, then so be it. As the current game mechanics are, if you set something down, you give up ownership of that item. It's up to the player to decide if he wants to be curtious to another player and not pick up stated item. If someone does pick it up though, then there is no reason you can get mad, as you gave up the owenership of that item the moment you dropped it. That other person isn't trully being evil, simply taking advantage of his surroundings. You can either RP that out, or take it OOC and get upset. Most of the time, running after the other person, and talking with them will either get the item back, or they will keep it for themselves. They do have that right afterall, you did drop it on the ground to begin with. You may be able to challenge them to a duel for said item to get it back, but its not like they have to accept. After all, you did drop it on the ground for anyone to pick up. That other player is simply playing the game as to how the game mechanics allow him/her to play.
The same goes with any other type of "evil" action done in the game. People are simply playing the game as to what it allows players to do at this current time in its developement. The real question becomes, are you going to complain about it or are you going to play along and react to what the game throws at you and truelly RP the world your character lives in? If the game mechanics change so that you have the ability to place an item, yet still retain ownership of that item, then there in opens the posibility for true thievery/stealing to take place. This then leads to a fuller RP experience, but again, it relies on what and how the game mechanics are set up.
This holds true to any example from the game, from being able to drink litteraly 100's of potions in a single second to being able to walk through another character when they want you to stop. Is it realistic? Of course not. Can you stop it? Not with out chaning the games rules. Play by what the current game mechanics allow you to do and RP that. Then, if you are unhappy with the current way the game is setup, suggest ways in which the devs can implement ways on how to fix what you think needs changing. Thats the primary function of these forums afterall, to allow players the oportunity to provide feedback to the game designers so they can further shape and mold this game to the ideal direction they want to take it. Play the world as it is given to you, and should the rules change, then adapt. Really, just go with the flow of things.
-
What are the settings Zanzibar? Just because they say that there is no record of inter racial conflict does not mean that it has not, or can not happen. As I said sometimes certain people will have an experiance that causes them to dislike or have an affinity for someone of another race. That, belive it or not, is how racial conflicts start.
I'm not going to RP an android or forrest troll in a game meant for an Indiana Jones style setting.
-
What are the settings Zanzibar? Just because they say that there is no record of inter racial conflict does not mean that it has not, or can not happen. As I said sometimes certain people will have an experiance that causes them to dislike or have an affinity for someone of another race. That, belive it or not, is how racial conflicts start.
I'm not going to RP an android or forrest troll in a game meant for an Indiana Jones style setting.
Nor should you. However in a game with both feline Enikidkai and Humans you can easily play a character that thinks it's disgusting that Enkidukai shed all over the place. You would even be able to pass this dislike on to others (IC) and create a ratial tension between Enkidukai and Humans.
-
What are the settings Zanzibar? Just because they say that there is no record of inter racial conflict does not mean that it has not, or can not happen. As I said sometimes certain people will have an experiance that causes them to dislike or have an affinity for someone of another race. That, belive it or not, is how racial conflicts start.
I'm not going to RP an android or forrest troll in a game meant for an Indiana Jones style setting.
Nor should you. However in a game with both feline Enikidkai and Humans you can easily play a character that thinks it's disgusting that Enkidukai shed all over the place. You would even be able to pass this dislike on to others (IC) and create a ratial tension between Enkidukai and Humans.
Thus violating the PS settings.
-
Zanzibar the settings are a guide not the world. (That is the point I was trying to get across earlier) And in any world you will have lots and lots of bad apples (even in an idealic world such as plainshift). There are lots of incharacter reasons which fit well into the planeshift settingfor a human to dislike Enkis because they shed. To say that such a thing viloates the Planeshift setting is the same as saying that individuality and human nature viloate the setting. Though my main character has no problem with the other races I will never play him as if he is a cardboard cutout made to fit perfictly with what someone else says he should be.
-
Gah,...6 pages later and I'm thinking "erm, what was the question?"
As far as good and evil go, ya can't have one without the other and I have to disagree with Karyuu's statement a while back, you need player cooperation to RP evil and newbies often don't even understand what roleplay is or are even aware that this is in fact a roleplaying game.Their concept of roleplay is often that of Zelda or Final Fantasy.
So, in order to RP evil acts you must turn to your veteran friends who actually do understand the concept of roleplay. Sure, you can accept a challenge from a newbie and stand there and cast a weakness spell on him or her until they drop their inventory, but I am told that this is a bug? Thats absurd, why even have the glyph in the game then? So in this instance, according to some, you have to exploit a bug to do it. Oh sure, some newbies may be easily manipulated to do certain things but more often than not, if one is successful at this task, theyr'e not going to realize it was RP and they take it as an OOC act.
As far as Dwarvesbane goes, I think it's an original premise for roleplay even if it is an ugly one.
One thing we all should remember is that we are setting a precedence for future roleplayers. The newbies that come into game are going to follow our example and learn from our mistakes...hopefully.
-
You speak as though every newbie has the brain of a buffalo. Not including them in RP or thinking that they are going to get so confused that it's not even worth pursuing, is very disappointing to hear from you. The original discussion of the thread included some suggestions as to what roleplaying an evil character may include - and challenging them to duels was by far the least necessary of them all. So why don't you extend some more effort into your roleplaying to explain the concept to new players, and let them know that it is a game - no matter how rude your character may be, there are no hard feelings and their character can do things just as "mean" or even worse - if that's their character.
What I see from you is a general attitude of "They won't understand at all, pass them over."
The newbies that come into game are going to follow our example and learn from our mistakes...hopefully.
Yes, hopefully new players will realize that it's just as fun to make new friends as it is to play with the old. Let's unstick ourselves from our comfortable circles every now and then and experience the wider world.
-
Zanzibar the settings are a guide not the world. (That is the point I was trying to get across earlier) And in any world you will have lots and lots of bad apples (even in an idealic world such as plainshift). There are lots of incharacter reasons which fit well into the planeshift settingfor a human to dislike Enkis because they shed. To say that such a thing viloates the Planeshift setting is the same as saying that individuality and human nature viloate the setting. Though my main character has no problem with the other races I will never play him as if he is a cardboard cutout made to fit perfictly with what someone else says he should be.
What you're saying is that the settings need to be changed.
-
Zanzibar the settings are a guide not the world. (That is the point I was trying to get across earlier) And in any world you will have lots and lots of bad apples (even in an idealic world such as plainshift). There are lots of incharacter reasons which fit well into the planeshift settingfor a human to dislike Enkis because they shed. To say that such a thing viloates the Planeshift setting is the same as saying that individuality and human nature viloate the setting. Though my main character has no problem with the other races I will never play him as if he is a cardboard cutout made to fit perfictly with what someone else says he should be.
What you're saying is that the settings need to be changed.
No Zanzibar, though the settings are out of date (racial centers anyone?) thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the setting is a guide nothing more. If you limit yourself to exactly what it says you will be severly limiting your own ability to roleplay not to mention seting yourself up for conflicts of interpitation.
-
The settings aren't out of date. They just aren't completely filled in when it comes to public info. Racial centers do not imply racism, for example.
-
And yet Karyuu if there are no dificulties why have them? Why segrigate yourselves?
-
Because the races still have different cultural roots, arts, and lifestyles. It has nothing to do with segregation - just because a city may be built by Enkidukai, doesn't mean that no other race resides there.
-
Zanzibar the settings are a guide not the world. (That is the point I was trying to get across earlier) And in any world you will have lots and lots of bad apples (even in an idealic world such as plainshift). There are lots of incharacter reasons which fit well into the planeshift settingfor a human to dislike Enkis because they shed. To say that such a thing viloates the Planeshift setting is the same as saying that individuality and human nature viloate the setting. Though my main character has no problem with the other races I will never play him as if he is a cardboard cutout made to fit perfictly with what someone else says he should be.
What you're saying is that the settings need to be changed.
No Zanzibar, though the settings are out of date (racial centers anyone?) thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the setting is a guide nothing more. If you limit yourself to exactly what it says you will be severly limiting your own ability to roleplay not to mention seting yourself up for conflicts of interpitation.
I don't feel that the settings are very limiting, and I've played a bunch of RP games. It isn't total freedom, but it's more than just a bunch of suggestions - it's a statement of the way things are.
-
@Karyuu Realy is that all it is? Somehow I find that unlikely even in a "perfect" world. Hell even I find it hard to like my some of my fellow man simply because of some of the habbits they maintain. Do you realy think that a nonEnki who grew in up in an Enki house hold and had to constantly brush fur of of his things would want to live in around a large number of them?
Because the races still have different cultural roots, arts, and lifestyles. It has nothing to do with segregation - just because a city may be built by Enkidukai, doesn't mean that no other race resides there.
Karyuu I hope you realise that what you've just stated is in reality one of the biggest factors behind racial strife.
@Zanzibar I never said it was just a bunch of suggestions; I said it was a guide. It says what things should be what the general populace belives the world to be not what that world truely is. Also just because you don't feel it's limitimg does not give you the right to force it's limitations on others. You may have no interest in playing a character that stands out from the norm; I on the other hand have no interest in playing a charecter that conforms to the norm. In short Zanzibar the setting is not the world; it is a guide to the world. WE are the world
-
It says what things should be what the general populace belives the world to be not what that world truely is.
Mm... no, I don't think so. The settings describe the world as it is. And believe it or not, the players don't make the world - they fill it, but it's cut to a certain mold. You can certainly try to step out of it sometimes, but that mold is still there, because that's the design of the game. If it doesn't suit you, I wouldn't suggest trying to change the game itself.
Do you realy think that a nonEnki who grew in up in an Enki house hold and had to constantly brush fur of of his things would want to live in around a large number of them?
There are non-Enkidukai NPCs in Akkaio, and it's just a start. These are the settings - accept them a little, ey? :]
-
@Zanzibar I never said it was just a bunch of suggestions; I said it was a guide. It says what things should be what the general populace belives the world to be not what that world truely is. Also just because you don't feel it's limitimg does not give you the right to force it's limitations on others. You may have no interest in playing a character that stands out from the norm; I on the other hand have no interest in playing a charecter that conforms to the norm. In short Zanzibar the setting is not the world; it is a guide to the world. WE are the world
It's entirely possible to RP a character that sticks out from the norm while still adhering to the settings.
And no, "we" are not the world. We are in a world constructed by the devs.
-
If you truely belive they describe the world as it is lets take a look at it.
Nevertheless, the racial traditions are quite strong and evident, since they all arrived from distant different places not more than 700 years ago.
Kinda contradictory to this right here don't you think
Racial suspicion and hostility are completely unknown, given that the distances between cities are not great, and trades are a central part of Yliakum society.
Besides I never said that I didn't accept the setting, or that I was trying to change the game. Only that nothing you put in the setting can 100% reflect the reality of the world.
I think part of the problem here is that I tend to use words for their meanings and not for their synonyms which while they can have similar meanings often vary enough to cause more than a little confusion. Especialy if you to greatly assosiate the meaning of a synonym to another word (sadly happens a great deal in this age of slang)
Zanzibar I disagree. The world may have been created to a certain extent by the devs, but the world is truely made up of those who live within it. It is a "mold" as Karyuu put it, but by necesity it must be a maleable one.
-
I don't really see the contradiction in those quotes - but it's rather late here, so I could very well be missing something. Regardless, can you elaborate on that, just for my sake?
I get the feeling that you mean to say that they are mutually exclusive - and I don't see it as so.
-
We can have our own culture and traditions...
...yet at the same time live in peace with one another.
It is possible.
-
I don't really see the contradiction in those quotes - but it's rather late here, so I could very well be missing something. Regardless, can you elaborate on that, just for my sake?
I get the feeling that you mean to say that they are mutually exclusive - and I don't see it as so.
Ahh but the reality of it is that it is so. Or more simply put racial traditions can and most likely will conflict with each other. So can and do social traditions. Why do you think after all this time (far longer than Yliakum has had) we still have so many prevelent racial and social problems.
@Zanzibar not realy. It often requires far more in the way of compromise than the majority are willing to give.
-
"Can and most likely will" does not imply "always must," however. In addition, it's a made-up world - some reality can be dropped without disasterous results.
-
@Zanzibar not realy. It often requires far more in the way of compromise than the majority are willing to give.
I never really believed them either when they said Canada was a real country.
-
Yes Karyuu some realitys can be dropped. A key point of human nature is sadly not one of them. Takeing this another route: Being feline in nature how do you suppose Enkidukai clean themselves?
Zanzibar you missed the point entirely. *Points at the middle east* They are in reality only the tip of the iceburg
-
Yes Karyuu some realitys can be dropped. A key point of human nature is sadly not one of them. Takeing this another route: Being feline in nature how do you suppose Enkidukai clean themselves?
Zanzibar you missed the point entirely. *Points at the middle east* They are in reality only the tip of the iceburg
The Middle East is culturally diverse.
The Middle East is in conflict.
Therefore, the conflicts inherent to cultural diversity are impossible to overcome.
True? I think not.
Especially given the example of Canada.
And no: Violations of rules do not prove those rules correct. The saying you're thinking of dates back to a time when the meaning of "prove" was "to test". Things could be proven true or false; to prove something did not always mean to show that it is true.
-
Being feline in nature how do you suppose Enkidukai clean themselves?
We're primates, but we don't exactly clean ourselves like chimps do. There is a limit to such comparisons. "Human nature" can be an excuse for Ylians and Xacha, with a very strong maybe at that, but they are just two of the twelve races - and they don't have violent cultures at all, like we may have here on Earth.
The settings seem quite reasonable to me, and I'm not really understanding why you would make arguments against them.
-
The settings seem quite reasonable to me, and I'm not really understanding why you would make arguments against them.
It's because people want to do whatever the heck they want. That's really what it comes down to... if they can't ignore the settings completely, they'll justify it by saying that the settings are just "guidelines" or suggestions which players are supposed to work against. Err, I mean surpass and move beyond! Yes! It's not destruction, it's developement!
-
Actualy we clean ourselves alot like chimps do. We simply do so more often and tend to do a much better job.
Also found a few things you might be interested in in the race descriptions.
Their familiarity with some of the semi-intelligent races that dwell in the Stone Labyrinths has raised suspicion with the other races.
They have a strong pride that sometimes develops into feuds with other clans or other races. They tend to be suspicious and quarrelsome towards other races that are taller than they are.
The Enkidukai race maintains its wild nature. They live in packs controlled by the male who is strongest and most skilful in combat. Each pack has a typical and easily recognizable look, mostly because of their habit in cutting or coloring fur in ritual or traditional ways. Enkidukai are always suspicious of strangers at the beginning, but once you gain their trust, they become faithful companions
Karyuu it's not that I want to make argument against the settings mearly against the theory that they are the sole description of what the world is. As i have already stated "even in a perfect world there will be more than a few bad apples". I also don't like to see contradictions in the setting that disprove the very arguments that somethig is against that setting. (see quotes above)
-
Hatchnet, you can't generalize like that about cultural diversity and conflict. The middle east is just one place among many, and there are many counter examples.
Even then, PS is a fictional land created by the devs, and if they want to make it unrealistic, then that's their right.
-
Understood, Hatchnet. Seeing just how little of the setting we have public at the moment, we definitely can all say that it's an incomplete description. Still, players don't make the setting - and over time as we find more and more information about the world, roleplay will have to adapt. But the dev team is really the sole source of the description of the world - and though there may be racial tensions, there really aren't any massive, organized hate-groups. I suppose that's what I was driving at. I've rather lost the topic :}
-
Hatchnet, you can't generalize like that about cultural diversity and conflict. The middle east is just one place among many, and there are many counter examples.
Even then, PS is a fictional land created by the devs, and if they want to make it unrealistic, then that's their right.
Err no theres not. There are a few, but our real world is a history of cultural conflict and many of the ones where people claim that two races or groups are getting along it is simply one takeing advantage of another.
The Devs have every right to make the world unrealistic. Just not when they are trying to make "A realistic world". Besides though I do not know which was written first either the racial profiles or the general stteing need to be edited as they contradict each other. See above.
Understood, Hatchnet. Seeing just how little of the setting we have public at the moment, we definitely can all say that it's an incomplete description. Still, players don't make the setting - and over time as we find more and more information about the world, roleplay will have to adapt. But the dev team is really the sole source of the description of the world - and though there may be racial tensions, there really aren't any massive, organized hate-groups. I suppose that's what I was driving at. I've rather lost the topic :}
:lol: Thats what I've been saying all along.
-
Well it seams to me most of you have A. forgotten the point of this post, no matter i don't care much anyway, but would like to point out most of the quotas you are throwing around come from the guide. do yourself a favor and look up in a dictionary or goggle it don't care what you do. Find out what a GUIDE is. It in short means to lead you in a general direction, also means not set in stone.
B. In the case of this game Direction Devs wont it to go. But we are constantly told to test out new things and if they like it WILL change way things are, So try it and see.
-
The Devs have every right to make the world unrealistic. Just not when they are trying to make "A realistic world".
*sigh*
I think their intentions are pretty clear. It seems to me like you're searching for ways to justify doing what you want to do.
Well it seams to me most of you have A. forgotten the point of this post, no matter i don't care much anyway, but would like to point out most of the quotas you are throwing around come from the guide. do yourself a favor and look up in a dictionary or goggle it don't care what you do. Find out what a GUIDE is. It in short means to lead you in a general direction, also means not set in stone.
B. In the case of this game Direction Devs wont it to go. But we are constantly told to test out new things and if they like it WILL change way things are, So try it and see.
When the guide gives an absolute, it gives an absolute.
-
When the guide gives an absolute, it gives an absolute.
None of our characters have seen the guide. They have seen some books in the library and perhaps talked to NPCs and other characters. Everything else is up to what they believe and they are free to believe anything they want. And others are free to think that our characters are lost their minds because it makes no sense what they say :P
-
When the guide gives an absolute, it gives an absolute.
None of our characters have seen the guide. They have seen some books in the library and perhaps talked to NPCs and other characters. Everything else is up to what they believe and they are free to believe anything they want. And others are free to think that our characters are lost their minds because it makes no sense what they say :P
That's probably the most interesting excuse I've read so far. Very convoluted - I applaud you!
-
Unless your characters have lived in other worlds their entire lives, they should behave as the guide "suggests". Otherwise there is no point to having a setting at all - and it would be nice to respect the world as it is written :> Sure, everyone has whatever freedom they want - but to avoid setting conflicts and awkward RP, we shouldn't exactly bring into the game whatever we want. ICly we can consider those who rave about cell phones and televisions to be crazy, but that would completely ruin the game, for example.
-
Zanzibar you seem to see the Setting as an absolute set in stone. It is not and can never be so. Further more just as you claim others are useing the fact that it is a guid and nothing more as an excuse to Rp however they want. You are useing your claim that it is absolute to justify your attempts to tell others how to play.
The main crux of this that this is a changeing world. Things happen people happen. Yes as Karyuu has said we must have respect for the settings and take them into consideration both when we make our characters as well as when we play them. This does not mean that we can't play a character who does not like Dwarves for their surly attitude. All it means is that we can not roleplay as if everybody dislikes Dwarves for their surly attitude.
-
Zanzibar I disagree. The world may have been created to a certain extent by the devs, but the world is truely made up of those who live within it. It is a "mold" as Karyuu put it, but by necesity it must be a maleable one.
I see your point and partially agree. There really isn't one without the other. The devs can create the game but in the end without players to keep the world turning for lack of a better word, the world of Yliakum would be empty except for those devs who play it. On that same note .... the devs can also say that you wouldn't have the characters you have developed without the settings we give you to work with, or the items, or the in game events or the rules we have laided down. The players could say, without us writing ours stories, creating back grounds, spending hours in game and playing with the items this world ..... Yliakum wouldn't really exsist with life and the realisim you are trying to create. One needs the other to make this project sucessful. So in a sense it takes two to make it work.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Roleplaying an evil character
Playing an evil character is very hard to do from what I hear from a certain few I have had the pleasure of roleplaying with. I don't think the game is anywhere near the point where you can play evil (Not anyones fault really). There just isn't enough information and with easy access about this sort of topic. The best suggestion I can come up with from my own personal experience is this:
If you are going to roleplay an evil character make sure you are doing it with players in the game who understand the difference between roleplay and real life to start off with. Establish your character with friends aka enemies to start and those friends should be the first to stand up and say when a newbie is around that you are not truly that way behind the character but you are just playing an evil character. This way it sets an example for the new comer and they realise that it isn't just the evil character ok with this but that his friends aka enemies support him/her in this behavior. Then the new comer may not feel signaled out with the behavoir. People tend to accept what is if there are large amounts of people supporting it. Most people are sheep ... what can I say.
Second of all know when to stop being your bad self. If a newbie is taking serious offence then don't continue the roleplay. Send a /tell apologising and then make note of that person so that you don't have them involved in your roleplays until they get the understanding of how the world works. Once that is accomplished then maybe invited them to roleplay with you again. I have watched evil character just push and prod a person and not quit. It surprises me that this evil character is shocked when reported.
Evil characters CAN petition too. If you have explained to a newbie that you were just in character and that you meant no offence and they still follow you around and get on your case, well you do have the right to complain about that as it is harrassment. This will aviod your hand getting smacked by a GM as they will have the information that this "good" character is just taking things out of context.
Be willing to accept that you will not be everyones favorite person if you decide to play evil. Don't be surprised if you walk into the tavern and are ignored because you have a rep for being MR bad. Also be willing to accept the game doesn't seem to accommodate at this point evil characters, so there is going to be complications with certain situations. Don't bring it to the forums and freak out if you run into this problem. Instead think about the problem and bring it to the forums worded in a way that you explain the problem and your ideas on how to fix it, or your lack of ideas but that you just wanted to point out the problem.
Understand that evil just isn't stealing or cusing someone out or just being a jack ass. An evil character could be the best friend beside you who seems loyal and trust worthy but is spying on your guild and taking the information to your enemies. I would give more example but at the moment I can't think of any.
Over all playing evil should be fun. If it starts to become a big thing and you have a horde of ticked off people chasing you but you are in real life irritated and just want to be left alone .... well that is why we have a choice to have different character. Take a step away from the computer or log on as someone else and deal with the situation when you and others have calmed down. Trying to deal with people angry won't accomplish much and will just be irritating in the end.
I think this was probably one of the longest posts I ever did. Anyway I hope some of what I have posted will help. :)
-
Ahh.. the debate of good and evil eh?
It gets real interesting when you notice it's not a two-sided coin you're looking at, but a sphere with an infinite number of sides - It's all perspective.
The way I see it. Your character would have to be able to identify themself as something horrible in order to play a truely 'evil' character(a pickpocket that lothes their work, an assassin that feels guilty/remorse, a 'holy' crusader disillusioned by doubt, etc.). I'm not sure I want to touch the popular = good/disliked = bad arguement though. =P
The real problem here seems to be lack of ability to perform certain actions(or maturity to accept them). /shrug
I really have been away too long. <_<
-
The way I see it. Your character would have to be able to identify themself as something horrible in order to play a truely 'evil' character(a pickpocket that lothes their work, an assassin that feels guilty/remorse, a 'holy' crusader disillusioned by doubt, etc.). I'm not sure I want to touch the popular = good/disliked = bad arguement though. =P
I disagree. There are many people in the world who do evil things without thinking that they're doing evil things.
-
Zanzibar you seem to see the Setting as an absolute set in stone. It is not and can never be so. Further more just as you claim others are useing the fact that it is a guid and nothing more as an excuse to Rp however they want. You are useing your claim that it is absolute to justify your attempts to tell others how to play.
The main crux of this that this is a changeing world. Things happen people happen. Yes as Karyuu has said we must have respect for the settings and take them into consideration both when we make our characters as well as when we play them. This does not mean that we can't play a character who does not like Dwarves for their surly attitude. All it means is that we can not roleplay as if everybody dislikes Dwarves for their surly attitude.
The setting IS set in stone. Ofcourse things will be able to change over time and ofcourse the setting isn't perfect yet but we aren't here just to test the gamemechanics. We are also here to help the devs build the RP setting and test the setting as it is today.
OK why is the setting set in stone? Becuase the setting is what makes roleplaying roleplaying. You play a character that fits in the setting. You don't alter the setting to fit the character.
An example of what this means in my opinon. One Dwarvesbane members had in her description that a dwarvenparty raided her town and used them as slaves. This is why she hates dwarves. Where does this not go with the setting.
1. Not impossible but very unlikely that bands like that would be only dwarves. There might be some towns that are mostly one race, but to have a band like that consist of just one race is not in the spirit of the setting.
2. There is no hate between races says the setting. So that a person would hate those dwarves wouldn't be fitting. Being cautious around dwarves in general even likely, but hate you are leaving the setting again in my opinon. Specially seeing the events are in your history so not a change made by roleplaying.
With many things you have a choice, but the setting makes us all live in the same world and that sometimes means you can't chose how your character will react in a certain situation if you roleplay well, becuase the setting has already chosen this for you.
This ofcourse is my opinion ;)
-
That is of course your opinion, and while I will agree that that particular persons reason for hateing dwarves is a bit overboard givin what the setting says, you may want to reread the entire setting. Includeing the race descriptions.
O and the bigest reason I say that the setting is not set in stone is not individuality (though that is a big one), but that all things change over time.
-
That is of course your opinion, and while I will agree that that particular persons reason for hateing dwarves is a bit overboard givin what the setting says, you may want to reread the entire setting. Includeing the race descriptions.
O and the bigest reason I say that the setting is not set in stone is not individuality (though that is a big one), but that all things change over time.
It really seems like you're reaching here.
The devs have told us to respect the settings. So why shouldn't we respect the settings? Because we don't feel like it?
-
Well you know, if we adhered strictly to the settings, Enki males would always be fighting for leadership of a pack or guild and they would all be in packs and logic dictates that if they are, then they would have less contact with the other races.
This is just one example I am sure more can be found.
-
Well you know, if we adhered strictly to the settings, Enki males would always be fighting for leadership of a pack or guild and they would all be in packs and logic dictates that if they are, then they would have less contact with the other races.
This is just one example I am sure more can be found.
No. The only ones that would fight for leadership would be the ones interested in leadership enough to fight for it.
-
I disagree. There are many people in the world who do evil things without thinking that they're doing evil things.
This, of course, is by your standard of evil. ;)
-
I disagree. There are many people in the world who do evil things without thinking that they're doing evil things.
This, of course, is by your standard of evil. ;)
Hurting people, stealing, senseless acts of destruction, malice towards others, violent intolerance... etcetera. The definition of "evil" isn't something easily put into words.
I would hope that you're just trying to be cute by suggesting that the definition of evil is subjective. It would be unfortunate if you were trying to insult me by saying that my definition of evil is deviant.
-
Just wont to throw in a new twist to this fascinating topic. The history is up to this point, but we all know things change.
As Rome was mentioned lets give that as a example of what i mean. I saw the Romans as a brutal conquering race who took great pleaser in slavery and brutal deaths.[gladiators, that sort of thing in arena]
Look at them today Italy, very different from what I just described. Yet the same race.
-
Romans aren't a race.. :P
Satayne is right - Enkidukai, and nearly every other race, don't currently act as they should. That is because there isn't enough information -in the game itself- at the moment, nor a lot of content, to help players when acting out their characters. And as I think I mentioned earlier, with more information and further development of the game, roleplay will have to adjust until it fits the setting closer and closer. But that adaptation is inevitable.
-
Romans aren't a race.. :P
That's it, ignore the point I was making and pedantically point out a small discrepancy of definition.
-
Romans aren't a race.. :P
That's it, ignore the point I was making and pedantically point out a small discrepancy of definition.
Even if you meant "society" instead of race, you'd still be off the mark. The Italians live in the same geographical location as the Romans, but it's not the same society. A lot of time and history has gone by, many Empires have come and gone. The land has been conquered and reconquered.
-
I'm not ignoring your point, Janner. I just don't think that I have to respond to every point everyone makes, especially if I understand/agree with the basic gist of it.
-
That is of course your opinion, and while I will agree that that particular persons reason for hateing dwarves is a bit overboard givin what the setting says, you may want to reread the entire setting. Includeing the race descriptions.
O and the bigest reason I say that the setting is not set in stone is not individuality (though that is a big one), but that all things change over time.
It really seems like you're reaching here.
The devs have told us to respect the settings. So why shouldn't we respect the settings? Because we don't feel like it?
I have never said not to respect the settings Zanzibar. That is you attemting to put words in my mouth in order to support your own argument. (And before you say I'm just saying that to discredit you I have actualy posted several times that we must respect the settings)
Part of the problem with your argument, Zanzibar, is that you uphold a part of the setting never intended as anything more than general as being the be all and end all of all of Yliakum. You do this despite the fact that other areas of the settings which affect things on a much more personal level show this to be otherwise and to in truth only to be a generality.
-
I'm not ignoring your point, Janner. I just don't think that I have to respond to every point everyone makes, especially if I understand/agree with the basic gist of it.
Thank you and Sorry.
-
I have never said not to respect the settings Zanzibar. That is you attemting to put words in my mouth in order to support your own argument. (And before you say I'm just saying that to discredit you I have actualy posted several times that we must respect the settings)
"You know we've already moved well away from what the main site history says. Besides interatial conflicts are the kinds of things that can start from one person haveing a distaste for dwarves, an enki holding all humans responsible for the ones/s that raped it's mother, or an elf feeling that the diaboli should be destroyed because they are the "spawn of the devil". Realy all natural things for certain types of people."
"What are the settings Zanzibar? Just because they say that there is no record of inter racial conflict does not mean that it has not, or can not happen. As I said sometimes certain people will have an experiance that causes them to dislike or have an affinity for someone of another race. That, belive it or not, is how racial conflicts start."
"Nor should you. However in a game with both feline Enikidkai and Humans you can easily play a character that thinks it's disgusting that Enkidukai shed all over the place. You would even be able to pass this dislike on to others (IC) and create a ratial tension between Enkidukai and Humans."
"Zanzibar the settings are a guide not the world."
"I'm saying that the setting is a guide nothing more. If you limit yourself to exactly what it says you will be severly limiting your own ability to roleplay not to mention seting yourself up for conflicts of interpitation."
"I never said it was just a bunch of suggestions; I said it was a guide. It says what things should be what the general populace belives the world to be not what that world truely is. Also just because you don't feel it's limitimg does not give you the right to force it's limitations on others. You may have no interest in playing a character that stands out from the norm; I on the other hand have no interest in playing a charecter that conforms to the norm. In short Zanzibar the setting is not the world; it is a guide to the world. WE are the world."
"Besides I never said that I didn't accept the setting, or that I was trying to change the game. Only that nothing you put in the setting can 100% reflect the reality of the world."
"The Devs have every right to make the world unrealistic. Just not when they are trying to make "A realistic world"."
"Zanzibar you seem to see the Setting as an absolute set in stone. It is not and can never be so. Further more just as you claim others are useing the fact that it is a guid and nothing more as an excuse to Rp however they want. You are useing your claim that it is absolute to justify your attempts to tell others how to play."
"O and the bigest reason I say that the setting is not set in stone is not individuality (though that is a big one), but that all things change over time."
Hatchnet, to me it seems pretty clear that you think that the settings are not rules so much as they are suggestions. You use different words, and you deny that you think they're merely suggestions, but functionally there's no difference between them being suggestions and how you see them. You see them as rules that can be bent, broken, changed for convenience or creativity or intuition, or ignored completely. That means that you see them as suggestions.
Part of the problem with your argument, Zanzibar, is that you uphold a part of the setting never intended as anything more than general as being the be all and end all of all of Yliakum. You do this despite the fact that other areas of the settings which affect things on a much more personal level show this to be otherwise and to in truth only to be a generality.
Which part? This discussion has been pretty general.
-
Zanzibar reread all those posts, then go back and reread the ones you left out for the sake of your argument, and then go back and reread the entire setting includeing the race descriptions. O and while your doing this try to keep in mind the actual meanings of words and not what you want them to mean.
-
Zanzibar reread all those posts, then go back and reread the ones you left out for the sake of your argument, and then go back and reread the entire setting includeing the race descriptions. O and while your doing this try to keep in mind the actual meanings of words and not what you want them to mean.
You're right in saying that I left out the ones which weren't relevant to the point I was trying to make. I didn't see what the point would be to repeating them if they weren't relevant.
You're saying that the guide is malleable, that it's not set in stone, that some parts of it only count some of the time, and that the initiative and intuition of us players takes precedence. Am I right?
-
Your only partialy right Zanzibar, but only because you try to manipulate things ti serve your own purpose. If you had truely reread everything as I asked not only would you have seen where in several places I have said that "we must respect the settings" you would also see were there are places in the settings that prove your arguments wrong.
-
Your only partialy right Zanzibar, but only because you try to manipulate things ti serve your own purpose. If you had truely reread everything as I asked not only would you have seen where in several places I have said that "we must respect the settings" you would also see were there are places in the settings that prove your arguments wrong.
If I'm wrong about something, then just say how I'm wrong. All this mud slinging you do is just an unnecessary distraction.
-
I have said so many times yet you have chosen to ignore it. Also it is not mudslinging when it is the truth.
Yet let us change things up abit: Do you belive it is against the settings for a person playing a stonebreaker dwarf to role play as if they are compleatly distrustful of the taller races.
-
I have said so many times yet you have chosen to ignore it. Also it is not mudslinging when it is the truth.
Yet let us change things up abit: Do you belive it is against the settings for a person playing a stonebreaker dwarf to role play as if they are compleatly distrustful of the taller races.
You're right. That is a change of subject.
Whether or not a particular character is acting within the settings is a different issue than whether or not characters should act within the settings.
-
Hatchnet I've read Zanzibars last posts and I know he can get under your skin sometimes as he and I have had our disagreements many times aswell ;)
But her I think he is being civil and the point he is adressing isn't delibaretly trying to push you in a corner that you aren't really in. You yourself have said as the many quotes show that you feel that you feel the guide is a guide and not set in stone and that things can be changed. That is the same as calling them suggestions I would say. You do say you think the setting should be respected, but if I read your post you feel the setting should be respected as a guide and not respected in the way as Zanzibar or I claim you should respect the settings.
That is of course your opinion, and while I will agree that that particular persons reason for hateing dwarves is a bit overboard givin what the setting says, you may want to reread the entire setting. Includeing the race descriptions.
O and the bigest reason I say that the setting is not set in stone is not individuality (though that is a big one), but that all things change over time.
I have already mentioned that contraditing setting (and race descriptions I think are kinda iffy as far as setting goes as they are often forgotten in updates) isn't a good exuse to ignore the setting. We are testing the setting and as more information becomes availeble it will be harder and harder to make it all fit. And it is our job as testers to report that these things contradict and then have the devs (and that means not you and me) decide what needs to be changed.
If the devs refuse to change it well then you might have a point that it's a reason to ignore part of the setting, but till that time it's just nitpicking that everything isn't eperfect and using that as an exuse to do what you want instead of what you think the settiing is ment to say.
-
Thankyou, Pestilence.
-
I have said so many times yet you have chosen to ignore it. Also it is not mudslinging when it is the truth.
Yet let us change things up abit: Do you belive it is against the settings for a person playing a stonebreaker dwarf to role play as if they are compleatly distrustful of the taller races.
You're right. That is a change of subject.
Whether or not a particular character is acting within the settings is a different issue than whether or not characters should act within the settings.
Actualy it is not a change of subgect; it is a change of aproach. So answer the question.
Pestilence your right contradicting setteings and race descriptions are iffy, however you do realise that a general setting is the same as a general description right? Just because racial tension is unknown in the general populace does not mean it does not happen. Lets take the Dwarvesbane guild as an example: they are in reality such a small part of Yliakum that they probably would not even get noticed in the grand sceam of things.
Something else the both of you might want to take into account is that I have never, not once said that it was alright to act as if there was a large group or movement against a particular race, but that such things while they do occure would be rare and on an individual basis.
Or rather to put it in Zanzibar's words "a Stonebreaker Dwarf that is not suspicious of those who are taller than him would be outside the settings". Now please tell me I'm not the only one who sees who ludicruss that sounds.
O and Pestilence for the rest your way off the mark from what I was saying.
-
Actualy it is not a change of subgect; it is a change of aproach. So answer the question.
Don't be ridiculous. Whether or not the settings need to be respected is different from whether or not a particular action violates the settings. It's not a different approach, it's a completely different question.
-
Actualy it is not a change of subgect; it is a change of aproach. So answer the question.
Don't be ridiculous. Whether or not the settings need to be respected is different from whether or not a particular action violates the settings. It's not a different approach, it's a completely different question.
Your just trying to be semantical; the two in reality go hand in hand. I have never said not to respect the settings, nor have I have ever said that we should go and viloate the settings,I have however said that we can be individuals. Now please answer the question.
-
Actualy it is not a change of subgect; it is a change of aproach. So answer the question.
Don't be ridiculous. Whether or not the settings need to be respected is different from whether or not a particular action violates the settings. It's not a different approach, it's a completely different question.
Your just trying to be semantical; the two in reality go hand in hand. I have never said not to respect the settings, nor have I have ever said that we should go and viloate the settings,I have however said that we can be individuals. Now please answer the question.
They don't go hand in hand, and it isn't semantics. They're different questions.
Should we stick to the settings? = What set (of actions) should we look at?
Is this dwarf sticking to the settings? = Is this action a part of the set?
Whether or not the dwarf is sticking to the settings is subjective. We could take a position on that question and discuss or argue the point. The bigger question - the one that counts - is whether or not the dwarf should stick to the settings.
-
O and Pestilence for the rest your way off the mark from what I was saying.
Please be a little more clear then that becuase I only said a few things about what I think you are saying and I believe each of the things I said have been directly taken from your own posts.
I also agree with Zanzibar that examples like that aren't the same discusion. I think his post shows the differerance quite clearly and anyhow discusing individual hypothetical cases will only cloud the subject.
-
Here you are again ignoreing every thing I've been saying. If you don't want to answer the question then stop argueing about the whole thing because you have lost your credibility. You guys have twisted my words to suit your meanings and are trying to make it look like I have been saying things I have not.
The whole !@#$%^& crux of this argument was wether or not racism was agianst the settings. I say it is not (at least on a small scale) Zanzibar has been saying it is (through what has been shown to be an inacurate interpitation of the settings). Furthermore his entire argument has shown itself to nothing more than an attempt to force his interpitation on others.
Now let me refrase why the question is so important in a fashion that may be easyier for you to understand. I have never said or argued that we should not respect or that we should violate the settings. My entire argument has been about wether or not something violates the settings (yup you guys are the ones trying to change the subject). Through out this Zanzibar has maintained that anyform of Racisim is against the settings because of what the general setting says. Now no more being nice about it either answer the question or get lost because my argument has nothing to do with wether or not we should violate the settings as you guys are trying to makeit seem, but with what exactly violates the settings.
Pestilence if you truely belive the things you said were taken from my post then you will probably want to read them again. As I said you were way off the mark from what I was saying.
-
This, of course, is by your standard of evil. ;)
Hurting people, stealing, senseless acts of destruction, malice towards others, violent intolerance... etcetera. The definition of "evil" isn't something easily put into words.
I would hope that you're just trying to be cute by suggesting that the definition of evil is subjective. It would be unfortunate if you were trying to insult me by saying that my definition of evil is deviant.
I assure you, it's not personal nor an insult - just an adult exchange of opinions. ;)
To me, it's like saying what is 'up' or 'down' while flying around space. It all depends on where you are and where/how you're looking at it. (and/or taking into consideration everyone else's views[popularity thing again])
Now, I think I've said about all I want to on this topic. I just came to say my opinion in hopes of offering a new perspective. I'll leave justifing who's 'right' and 'wrong' to those who believe they have a right to do so.
-
Racism is not the same thing as being distrustful, or slow to trust. By far not the same thing.
-
Here you are again ignoreing every thing I've been saying. If you don't want to answer the question then stop argueing about the whole thing because you have lost your credibility.
Naw. You've lost your credibility by insisting on the question be answered despite it being a distraction. Further, the example you gave isn't the same kind of racism as most people are talking about. Being a bit paranoid is different from thinking that an entire race is no better than beasts of labour
Racism is not the same thing as being distrustful, or slow to trust. By far not the same thing.
Exactly.
-
Racism is not the same thing as being distrustful, or slow to trust. By far not the same thing.
I have never said it was.
Zanzibar not all racism is the same. I know what I am talking about is racism on the individual level; it's what I've been talking about this whole time. Or haven't you been reading my posts?
If you think the question is nothing more than a distraction then why don't you answer it? I assure you that despite your beliefs otherwise it has a very pertinent point; in fact there was another to follow right after so just so maby things are a little bit clearer to you I'll go ahead and post it: Do you think that a Stonebreaker Dwarf who is not suspicious or distrustfull of those who are taller than him in anyway is outside of the settings?
Alright I'm going to go ahead and post a few more mettaphores to try and show you what I mean. Two are quite old another is one that came to me in part because of the posts on this thread. Now please try to make an actual effort to understand these instead of simply asumeing they mean what you want them to mean.
#1 There are a few bad apples in every bushel
#2 There are a few bad eggs in every bunch
#3 A cookie cutter in the shape of a star will produce an endless number of star cookies. A cookie cutter that is free of form will leave all the rough edges and imperfections of the dough while trimming off the excess.
I don't know about you but I don't want to be a star cookie.
-
If you think the question is nothing more than a distraction then why don't you answer it?
"Yet let us change things up abit: Do you belive it is against the settings for a person playing a stonebreaker dwarf to role play as if they are compleatly distrustful of the taller races."
If I answer and say that the dwarf is violating the settings, then we'll have a discussion where people might say I'm wrong because it isn't really racism, and someone might say that such an interpretation of the settings is extremely limiting to a degree not intended by the devs.
If I answer and say that the dwarf is not violating the settings, then someone might say that other forms of racism must therefore be permissible, including the Dwarvesbane RP.
Neither answer is truly correct, and not all the possible responses are truly appropriate. What remains true is that in either case, we'll spend time and energy discussing the question and the answer to the question and we won't accomplish anything because it's a pointless question to ask because it doesn't begin to touch the fundamental issue of whether or not the settings are merely a guide that makes suggestions or alternatively a true settings which characters are supposed to be within.
-
Neither answer is truly correct, and not all the possible responses are truly appropriate. What remains true is that in either case, we'll spend time and energy discussing the question and the answer to the question and we won't accomplish anything because it's a pointless question to ask because it doesn't begin to touch the fundamental issue of whether or not the settings are merely a guide that makes suggestions or alternatively a true settings which characters are supposed to be within.
Or how about the settings are a guide that players are suppost to follow. Remember the cookie cutters? Try it this way: If you fill a clay or glass bowl with marbles of different size they will all roll around perfectly with one another, however if you were to fill a bowl made of jello with the marbles they would all press into the jello a little bit different dependeng their posistion within the bowl and size.
-
Neither answer is truly correct, and not all the possible responses are truly appropriate. What remains true is that in either case, we'll spend time and energy discussing the question and the answer to the question and we won't accomplish anything because it's a pointless question to ask because it doesn't begin to touch the fundamental issue of whether or not the settings are merely a guide that makes suggestions or alternatively a true settings which characters are supposed to be within.
Or how about the settings are a guide that players are suppost to follow. Remember the cookie cutters? Try it this way: If you fill a clay or glass bowl with marbles of different size they will all roll around perfectly with one another, however if you were to fill a bowl made of jello with the marbles they would all press into the jello a little bit different dependeng their posistion within the bowl and size.
You've completely lost me. So you're saying that your question wasn't relevant?
-
No; thats not what I'm saying. You actualy had the point of the question with your last post, but you let it's meaning slip over your head.
-
No; thats not what I'm saying. You actualy had the point of the question with your last post, but you let it's meaning slip over your head.
In the post before that one, I said that the question was pointless and a distraction...
-
No; thats not what I'm saying. You actualy had the point of the question with your last post, but you let it's meaning slip over your head.
In the post before that one, I said that the question was pointless and a distraction...
Neither answer is truly correct, and not all the possible responses are truly appropriate.
As I said you had the point but you let the meaning slip over your head.
-
OK you're complaining that we don't understand you but don't answer my question what I had wrong and now instead of arguments you are using mettaphores making the discusion even more vague?
#1 There are a few bad apples in every bushel
#2 There are a few bad eggs in every bunch
#3 A cookie cutter in the shape of a star will produce an endless number of star cookies. A cookie cutter that is free of form will leave all the rough edges and imperfections of the dough while trimming off the excess.
I don't know about you but I don't want to be a star cookie.
But to go into them:
1 and 2: yep there are a few bad ones, but they are still apples or eggs. It's not "you have a few pears in every bushel of apples". The setting is the basis. After that the choice is yours, but you can't chose everything. You can't chose to be a pear or a peach if the setting says there are only apples.
3. If the setting says only starcookies it's only starcookies and not a moonshaped one. If you don't like it go join a game where you can be a moonshapecookie
4. The jello annalogy is just to vague and sure whatever I make of it you'll tell me I misunderstood it so ignoring that one :P
Neither answer is truly correct, and not all the possible responses are truly appropriate.
To be answered by one person. It's not up to Zan what the setting are and where the lines are. Nor is it up to you or me. We might be able to explore and discus but in the end it's up to the devs and as zanzibar said it's a different discusion altogether where the lines are to IF we have to keep within them or not.
Setting: The context and environment in which a situation is set
-
No; thats not what I'm saying. You actualy had the point of the question with your last post, but you let it's meaning slip over your head.
In the post before that one, I said that the question was pointless and a distraction...
Neither answer is truly correct, and not all the possible responses are truly appropriate.
As I said you had the point but you let the meaning slip over your head.
I'm sorry if my tiny brain is incapable of comprehending all these big ideas you're throwing at us. Maybe if you just said what you meant?
-
Pestilence stop trying to read what you want into everything and read things for what they mean will you.
That there are a few bad apples in ever bushel means just that (or at least it used to before modern thinking) you can't have perfection in anything. No perfect world and no world were every individual gets along perfectly with every one and every race/group.
Zanzibar I alway do, perhaps you should look at what I say means.
-
I am not but you are making something of it that it doesn't mean. You don't understand it yourself.
A few bad apples means you can't have perfection
This means translated to Planeshift that it can't be perfect. You will always have people who don't follow the rules.
Translated to Yliakum you can't have a perfect world so you shouldn't try to create one.
The point being is that imperfection only goes this far. Even when the apples aren't perfect they are still apples. They don't go as far as to become pears.
You can have evil persons and you can have murderers and conartists and whatnot. Those are bad apples, but not pears.
-
I am not but you are making something of it that it doesn't mean. You don't understand it yourself.
A few bad apples means you can't have perfection
This means translated to Planeshift that it can't be perfect. You will always have people who don't follow the rules.
Translated to Yliakum you can't have a perfect world so you shouldn't try to create one.
The point being is that imperfection only goes this far. Even when the apples aren't perfect they are still apples. They don't go as far as to become pears.
You can have evil persons and you can have murderers and conartists and whatnot. Those are bad apples, but not pears.
Pestilence If you can have murderers, conartists, and thieves then why not someone who simply does not like another race for some reason. It is not a stretch it is simply individuality. People will always have different experiances, and sometimes these experiances will lead them to a belife that is not the norm or even accepted by others.
-
Again you show that you don't understand the discusion.
It might not be a stretch and perhaps it is very true it should be made possible in the setting, but the question isn't if the setting says it's possible or not. The question is what if the setting says it isn't possible? What if the setting says it doesn't happen? That a person will always look with things that happen at the person and not at his race.
The question isn't if you think it should be a rule or not. The question is how do you handle something like this when it is a rule.
-
Again you show that you don't understand the discusion.
It might not be a stretch and perhaps it is very true it should be made possible in the setting, but the question isn't if the setting says it's possible or not. The question is what if the setting says it isn't possible? What if the setting says it doesn't happen? That a person will always look with things that happen at the person and not at his race.
The question isn't if you think it should be a rule or not. The question is how do you handle something like this when it is a rule.
(http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/2254/punch7fl.gif) Ya know I hate to be beating a dead horse here, but would you please reread all of my previous posts.
-
Why? I have told you this several times before as has Zanzibar. If you still don't get it then I'm sorry but then your not reading other peoples post and ignoring what they are saying. I think it's very hypocritical to be acusing others for not understanding you when you apperenly don't want to understand what other people are talking about. It's also very :offtopic: to keep posting about it.
And also I asked before to explain what I was misunderstaning and you ignored it. So even if i do misunderstand you have only yourself to blame for it.
-
I've been reading this thread since its begining now and this is my observationhere, so take it as you may, but I'm understanding Zanzi's and Pesti's posts alot more clearer than Hatch's. I get what they are saying and their points made seem much more clear. Don't take this the wrong way hatch, but I reread everything you wrote a few times now, and all I get out of is what has already been said by Zanzi and Pesti. Maybe its your wording, I don't know, but if you mean something else than what you are typing......I'm confused.
-
Pestilence you and Zanzibar were the ones who took this argument away from wether or not Racisim was against the settings to wether or not one should violate the settings. I have made it quite clear in a very large number of my posts that we should not go and outright violate the settings. If you are not going to even bother to read someones posts don't go calling them hypocrytical because their posts don't seem to mesh with what you think you are talking about.
@ Neko Mayby it's the way I think. Mayby it's the way they change subject and try to blamb it on someone else. Who knows.
-
Pestilence stop trying to read what you want into everything and read things for what they mean will you.
Maybe he's taking the meaning which is most obvious, and you just aren't communicating your ideas well enough?
That there are a few bad apples in ever bushel means just that (or at least it used to before modern thinking) you can't have perfection in anything. No perfect world and no world were every individual gets along perfectly with every one and every race/group.
I don't see how that's relevant. At all. So you're saying that I'm right, but just because I'm right doesn't mean everyone will respect the rules of the game?
Pestilence you and Zanzibar were the ones who took this argument away from wether or not Racisim was against the settings to wether or not one should violate the settings. I have made it quite clear in a very large number of my posts that we should not go and outright violate the settings. If you are not going to even bother to read someones posts don't go calling them hypocrytical because their posts don't seem to mesh with what you think you are talking about.
@ Neko Mayby it's the way I think. Mayby it's the way they change subject and try to blamb it on someone else. Who knows.
Actually, you've said that it's ok to violate the settings to some extent since the settings are only a suggestion (a guide).
-
Okay everybody, calm down.
Let's stop that "you don't understand me!" "you go off topic!" discussion, it won't bring us anywhere.
The only question here is: How strict is the guide meant?
And this question cannot be decided on by us, but only by the author.
-
I will believe I don't understand Hatchnet if he says such is the case.
-
I will believe I don't understand Hatchnet if he says such is the case.
I belive I have already said so many times. I'm tired of this pointless bickering. Zanzibar just because I say the settings are a guid does not mean I am saying that it is okay to violate them.
The point is we both view the settings in different ways; so lets just agree to disagree alright?
-
I will believe I don't understand Hatchnet if he says such is the case.
I belive I have already said so many times. I'm tired of this pointless bickering. Zanzibar just because I say the settings are a guid does not mean I am saying that it is okay to violate them.
The point is we both view the settings in different ways; so lets just agree to disagree alright?
Bickering? I agree that I don't understand what you're trying to say and I ask you to tell me... I give a possible interpretation, then you tell me I'm wrong... then you say to reread your posts...