I am certainly fine with you having taken out "meta-gaming" in this context, but I am still somewhat confused about whats wrong with an intention to create a character as a pure evil one. What about Duraza or Xeonart? Both were certainly evil and created as such, and the respective (reputable) player was a companionable fellow. However, this player was up to make his chars vulnerable in specific aspects (and gave clues OOCly), but these chars remained evil, be it the greater goal or if it was merely an apparently kind means to that same evil goal. I mean, I would consider a char still that evil (or even the more) if he would, say, temporarily act lawfully good, knowingly and intentionally of course, only in order to, for instance, charm or fool people to at last follow him (or to make use of them for) to his greater evil goal.
Wouldnt it be invalid as well, according to your words, to create a good character, one that fundamentally and consequently aims at helping people or serving gods, like a monk? To say there is only black and white and nothing in between might be stupid, but is it any better to say there is only gray, but none of the extremes?
Perhaps, however, it is merely about different definitions we have. But certainly I neither give anything on that rat's ass nor do I feel pissy. I am simply baffled having read your posts.
PS: Meta-gaming I think is to attribute things to your char actually gathered behind the curtain (=meta), hence, not really having anything to do with this topic.
