Interactions between good and evil characters

Meekir · Post by **Meekir** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 8:57 pm

nice opening comments about epic good vs. evil. C-:

Story is conflict. It's one of the best parts of my job (as any character) to provoke action and reaction, cause conflict, and challenge my opposites. I hope others do the same. What makes a MUD more than a glorified chatroom? Storytelling, immersing in a world, stepping into characters, epic ambitions and conflicts, everything fantasy RP games are all about.

In short, there should always be more interaction between PCs of conflicting alignments, faiths, and factions. You should (as anyone who plays with me knows I do, often) get into trouble. Pick your poison. Some of the best stories ever written were based on vengance, ambition, and lifelong feuds (Hamlet, Macbeth, R&J... to name a few. sometimes foolish, sometimes clever - I should hope your characters have interesting flaws that you the player don't necessarily share.) It's my impression that players may be hesitant to cause conflict, in the name of "playing nice." If you're chaotic and I'm annoyingly lawful, I invite you to RP and put your sword at my throat! And the other way around! That's part of the game...

Part of the mechanics of the MUD make it difficult to facilitate interaction, and I would heartily support a "neutral" city as a frequent meeting-ground for this type of RP.

I would also immediately suggest a more proactive approach in setting up RP with people OOC, either on the boards or through otells. Since FK is touted as a roleplay Mud, I would always rather get an invitation of some sort to roleplay, time allowing, than hang out and bash mobs. I think such polite OOC invitations - to join or to oppose a party - should be common practice. We shouldn't have to trust to coincidence to stumble upon each other in character! Other RP games actively work OOC to align the cosmos in favor of PC interaction, and we should too. A neutral meeting ground would make it that much easier.

Somewhere in this I keep seeing these bizarre personals ads...
"Villain Seeking Hero for Lifelong Vendetta";
"Justice and Mercy, Two for the Price of One!"

Meekir & Llewis

Raona · Post by **Raona** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:53 am

Nicely said, Meekir!

I've been debating how to respond to this question, and I'm still not sure, but have come up with two factors that I believe complicate good vs. evil RP:

1) Groups are difficult in good vs. evil RP because there often comes a point where critical decisions must be made that will decide if the conflict will escalate, devolve, or come to resolution. Something as simple and OOC as "I have to go to work in 20 minutes" might lead you to come up with a way of defering the interraction ICly, to pick it up later, for example. Invariably, in a group, any one person can throw down a card that decides these matters for the whole group - setting up a PK situation, or escalation of a conflict. This can be very frustrating for others in the group, who don't enjoy PK's, or ICly don't think a given fight to be worth fighting. OOC issues can impinge on this too - maybe I'm not creative enough, but I find there's a limit to what I can rationalize ICly:
Raona says "Um...GoodPC, look, I know that you are about to engage in an epic battle against impossible odds in order to try to stop the heinous plan of EvilPC from coming to fruition...but I really have to report for Watch Duty right now. I'll, um, come back and pick up your corpse when I'm done with my shift." (OOC, Raona has to go to work just as RP really intensifies. If Raona were alone, she'd be steering the IC interactions toward a deferal of the conflict.)
Solutions? Well, I'd side with more OOC openness, like OSAY "I have to leave for work in 20 minutes. I'd love to be involved in this, even if it comes to a PK, but I can't do it now." when the aformentioned decision point arises. But to many this is athema. Perhaps I just need more practice to pull off conveying this ICly! Short of that, perhaps we just need to be understanding of odd IC behavior in group RP situations. I do like the suggestion of OOC coordination of interactions, say using the forums, as suggested above. Ideally, these would outline the likelihood of the interaction coming to PK, and about how long the interaction would take.

[An aside: What do you do as a hero(ine) when you get a plea for help but don't have the RL time to actually help? I still haven't found a good IC answer for "I'm sorry, I can't come to your rescue right now. How about next Thursday?"]

2) Interaction and introduction can also be a hindrance. Raona had a wonderful (the adjective being OOC, mind you) IC interaction with a tiefling, but the tiefling had to go to rather some lengths to even get her attention and meet (greet) her, let alone pull her into his orbit enough to do his evil thing. The open-to-evils policy in Waterdeep helps this - goods and evils can get to know each other - but it does exclude certain characters. That can make it far more difficult for some types of RP to initiate (say human vs. orc - pretty much only random chance will initiate it...but maybe that's ICly right, now that I think about it...orcs don't really scheme against individuals? But certainly tiefilings and drow do.) I might suggest that neutral characters could earn some coin and help initiate these otherwise hard-to-start RP's by conveying messages and/or introducing goods to evils with plots concerning them in mind, and vice versa. ("You know, Raona, this odd woman was asking me questions about you the other day...asked me to give you this invitation.") The Magical Post also offers a new way around this roadblock, though I've not yet seen it used this way.

On the base question, at this point I will just observe that I've (regretably) often had to pass up on good vs. evil RP opportuinites because I've been in the middle of something else when the opportunity arose - going to meet a group at a set time, to rescue a fallen soul, etc. Even when that's not the case, OOC time restrictions can cut short or just obviate what would otherwise have been a great interaction spawned of random encounter - suggesting that (both OOC and IC) planning may be key to increasing good vs. evil contact and interaction.

Lerytha · Post by **Lerytha** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 10:57 am

Just wanted to say as well, about some of the responses to the Keep and Deep various forbidden entrances issue.

Waterdeep's expulsion of halfdrow, halforcs/orcs and tieflings has been RPed out. It was not just an implementation of a code thing. It was set up by a group of people trying to create laws and systems for Waterdeep, and is enforced by the (Tyr bless them) Watch.

The things in Zhentil Keep have not (they may have been in the distant past) been RPed. It is just a code thing that was instituted.

Now, if the Keep wants to expel certain races IC (elves, centaurs, aasimar possibly being the goody-two-shoes equivalent), then I say Yay for them. It will mean my elf character can't trade for components or whatever she wanted to do there, but it does give a parallel thing for Zhentil Keep and Waterdeep without completely eliminating all good/evil interaction.

In answer to the suggestions that RP is moved to a more neutral city: there is one. Westgate. Lots of RP happens there, too.

But really, I think casual evil/good RP does need to be less... OMG, you are evil. In Waterdeep (and in the Keep, to some extent) we act like sheltered people living in a farm who suddenly see someone from Amsterdam. That is, "What?! People like that actually EXIST?!" (note: not all evils or goods do this - sorry for possible offence). Waterdeep is NOT a paladin city. Yes, on this MUD it is definitely orienteered towards good, but it is a merchant's city, which means ICly there are evil people everywhere. And not evil slaughterslaughter evil. Just evil as in... "Oh, I'll just murder that rival and buy the business from his grieving widow for half the cost".

So, in the Square (of both the Keep and the Deep) I would prefer to have less "OMG, you're evil/good now you must be ignored, shouted at, or killed". Instead, why don't some goods realise that some evils might actually be out to hurt other evils and make truces? We're too quick to say, "Evil aura = death RP".

Now, at the same time, I support wholeheartedly certain reactions to certain faiths/races. Certain of my characters would contemplate talking civilly (even making friends) with an evil person from a faith that is not a faith enemy. But they would never make a friend or even talk civilly with their faith enemies.

Am I making sense? I'm just saying, there (imho) should be less EVIL - DIE - EVIL RP, and more subtle, "greater good" RP. Of course, if it is your character's RP to be "EVIL DIE!" then that is fair enough.

Ouch, I hope something in there came out sounding sane and that I haven't offended anyone.

~Ol

Tortus · Post by **Tortus** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:19 am

Part of the mechanics of the MUD make it difficult to facilitate interaction, and I would heartily support a "neutral" city as a frequent meeting-ground for this type of RP.

Couldn't Westgate potentially be this city?

I don't think the problem lies in lack of common ground, I think the problem lies in the fact that people either hang out in Waterdeep or Zhentil Keep, instead of places that could cater to both.

Even setting this aside, I sadly have my doubts that a neutral city could work.
This is because of the attitude of the two camps, good and evil.

I've found that evils (at least non-Cyricist ones

) in general are much more accepting than goods. When an evil encounters a goodie, it's often taken with a shrug, but the tendency I've observed among goodies encountering evils is to whip out the righteous hammer and engage in slandering and/or smiting.

Layna · Post by **Layna** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 11:31 am

Tortus wrote: I've found that evils (at least non-Cyricist ones ) in general are much more accepting than goods.

:O We're very accepting! Just don't try to talk religion with us...

I would absolutely love to see more 'working for a higher good' interaction with uneasy alliances and the associated soul searching found therein. I'd also like the fact that it challenges some of the preconceptions (such as the above

) that characters (and players) might have.

Side point: Do you think the Westgate tax would put newer players off of wanting to go and roleplay there? Genuine question - not me trying to covertly make a point

Rhytania · Post by **Rhytania** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:05 pm

A few thoughts:

I beleive something that would really boost the evil/good Rp was mentioned earlier. Using the evils/non-goods as adversary's/opponnents/competition in the imm run quests and stuff. I know that not too long ago There was a call for an evil imm run campaign and disapointedly hardly anyone showed up, so us evils have only ourselves to blame, however there are a lot of evil/non-good pc's out there that have found ways to inject themselves into the current imm run Rp Ardeep/Demon quest. Maybe if the Imms threw us a little bone or two perhaps a side tangent, something that doesnt require too much attention or focus diverted from the main RP but would pit us against the goods so to speak, could be fun and create a lot of needed friction. In the end its conflict that drives a storyline and without conflict everyone's just standing around chatting all day, and who better to bring that conflict than other PC's who can think, respond, and strategize better than any mob or coded AI can.

Ceara · Post by **Ceara** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:25 pm

Waterdeep used to be accepting, it was a lawful neutral city. It seems like a good neutral only city now which is disappointing. Most people are in the keep or waterdeep because they are the main starting cities and always were.
Getting around westgate can be confusing to persons who don't go there often or have never been there. Whereas the keep and waterdeep are fairly linear and it is easy to find the market.
As for the demon rp, a lot of evils have tried to get involved and have been pushed away. I'm one of them.
I think some imm run evil rp's that aren't faith specific would be nice for a change. In all the time I've been here the only one I remember was the Luck staff rp which was also geared towards those of good, but at least us evils were allowed to try to find it and involved.
I also agree that not all good evil interaction needs to be death rp. To my knowledge only Paladins and Celestials have an urge to kill evil on sight. Though with Paladins it's harder and not so simple, they can't just kill evil because it's there, they need to catch them doing something evil because of their lawful good alignment, otherwise it's just murder. I may be very wrong, but this is how I've been taught.
It's early, I'm exhausted and have to go to work. When I've read through this entire thread I'm sure I'll have a suggestion or two.
Nicely put Lerytha

Scylere · Post by **Scylere** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:49 pm

After reading everyone's responses some more thoughts came into my head.

In my view, the drow are kept in the Underdark to lessen sudden pkills, as a drow on the surface would catalyze. The drow keep to the underdark and rp in the underdark and with other drow (or those a drow would come in contact with). Fights with the goodies or surface occur when mobs are encountered. I believe that this is the hopes for FK that Dalvyn was trying to show in the drow debate. I'm sorry, if I'm wrong.

Recently, there was a massacre of goods, seven goods versus three evils. I believe this sort of pkill is what we should avoid. I would rather evils not come to "pick on", "stir trouble", "bother" or whatever, to the goods. A single or even two evils seeking trouble has no choice but to lead to a pkill.

Evils should rp with evils. Is there a Sharrite online? Log on yours. Is there an orc online? Log on yours. Is there an Umberlite online? Log on yours. Those of similar faith, alignment, etc should rp together. This would develop the faiths a whole lot, instead of seeing a conglomeration of different faiths. Evils shouldn't just random pick on people...unless they are stupid. Evils use their brains, plan things, work with others of their kind.

As I suggested before, I'd like to see rps within faiths, within races, within cities. The Zhentarum sent to spy on the Watch or Harpers (or vice versa). A Cyric holy crusade to bring a village to "submission". Gods of Fury use their followers to cause damage to villages and towns. Mystrans discover the hidden location of a weapon of great power or item to reverse time. Lathanderites and Kelemvorites sent to work together to destroy a great evil in the undead form.

It does not need to be complex and long. Just simple adventures with a clear purpose in sight, so the PCs can plan and execute. The PCs having the chance to plan and execute is the primary goal. A prime example is the Black Unicorn rp: simple and clear, the PCs understand, it's designed to target a specific ethos. And most importantly, the PCs can win.

I also believe that these rps must be exclusive. Just because a character is there, doesn't mean they should be involved in the rp, or even care about it. People flock to events because nothing like this happens and they want a part. If there were many small rps then people wouldn't have to flock, because they would know that there will be something come along for their character, something their character will thrive in.

In short: A pkill is best when it has real purpose.

Well, my mind is wandering, so I should be quiet now, save for one thing: These things are happening in FK, so I'm not trying to bash anyone or any rps. I just wanted to suggest some things for like Dalvyn asked to improve good/evil interaction.

Rhytania · Post by **Rhytania** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:39 pm

Just wanted to comment on that 7 good vs 3 evil. I find it disturbing that the goods only want to RP when they are in mass. When confronted individually they will do everything in their power to (to include just blatantly walk away on a few occaisons) however when they are severly outnumbering the evils, mob mentality sinks in. Had the situation been reversed and theyre where 7 evils and only three goods then I beleive every one would be crying Holy Hell.

Tortus · Post by **Tortus** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:10 pm

Recently, there was a massacre of goods, seven goods versus three evils. I believe this sort of pkill is what we should avoid. I would rather evils not come to "pick on", "stir trouble", "bother" or whatever, to the goods. A single or even two evils seeking trouble has no choice but to lead to a pkill.

You make it sound like evils are the cause of pk's and trouble here, which I strongly disagree with.
As I said before, the tendency I've perceived among goods is to get all high and holy, should they ever encounter an evil.
Several times when I, as an evil, have been travelling the world map, people of "goodly" alignment have come up to me and started bullying me, theatening me, calling their accomplices, etc. Sometimes until a pk situation is reached.

In my opinion, many times evils are blamed for these occurances, on the grounds that they were looking for trouble or something or the other, when in reality they were just doing some questing.

Evils should rp with evils. Is there a Sharrite online? Log on yours. Is there an orc online? Log on yours. Is there an Umberlite online? Log on yours. Those of similar faith, alignment, etc should rp together. This would develop the faiths a whole lot, instead of seeing a conglomeration of different faiths. Evils shouldn't just random pick on people...unless they are stupid. Evils use their brains, plan things, work with others of their kind.

"Evils should rp with evils"? Should we be restricted in who we roleplay with based on alignment and/or faith?
Just because your character sheet says you're evil doesn't mean you want to kill everything you see.
There are many ways to play an evil character, probably more than there is to play good.

Lathlain · Post by **Lathlain** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 4:35 pm

Scylere wrote:A single or even two evils seeking trouble has no choice but to lead to a pkill.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with this entirely.

It depends entirely on what you mean by 'seeking trouble', but I don't see that someone who wants to sow discord between lovers for the purpose of mischief isn't necessarily going to lead to a player kill. Even someone doing something as overtly as ambushing a caravan or even a lone wanderer to steal their money isn't necessarily going to lead to a player kill, provided both parties are sensible about it. Death is supposed to be a very ultimate consequence, and people should definitely think twice before plunging headlong into it!

If, of course, you meant an evil or two heading out with no plan other than to cause trouble, then the roleplay may well become considerably nastier, but even then it doesn't have to resort to killing. That said though, I'd be rather disappointed if I found out that there were people doing this even semi-regularly. Most of the evils I've had the pleasure of playing with have been thoughtful and intelligent, and would bend over backwards to avoid a player-kill situation - I think it's a common misconception that the evil population is a pack of blood-sucking savages.

Meekir · Post by **Meekir** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:48 pm

my impression is that the evils are a bunch of fluffy bunnies. and you goods find innocent evil puppies, and kick them.

come on, prove me wrong! *scrambles to flee and hide*

OK, now that we've cleared that up and can move on with the constructive discussion... I like Westgate as a neutral city with no tax, or even making Waterdeep more neutral, the point being to consolidate everyone in one place, so when ten people are online they know where they can go by default for RP.

I think the pk concerns can be largely addressed through OOC cooperativeness - like they're supposed to be, with IMMs as abritrators when needed. Stun only unless agreed to by both sides OOC. Isn't that the rule? It's not like players are evil OOC (or angels, for that matter). Players breaking the rules is an entirely seperate discussion.

The idea of getting in between conflicts as a neutral character rocks my socks. C-: Call me up for that any time. (I'm neutral! The best kind of neutral...)

I'm excited that I'm already seeing some renewed effort in game to set up RP between all kinds of people. Watch for the upcoming party in Westgate!

Ceara · Post by **Ceara** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:43 pm

Ok still haven't read the entire thread and won't have a chance to until later because my mother is on the way and freaks when I'm on the computer.
However, about the pk 7 goods vs 3 Evils. It wasn't instigated by the evils, nor were they there to pick on. In fact it started with my character who just happend to be walking from the plains towards the road and was followed and picked on by those who claim to be good. The evils tried to walk away 3 times and were persued. Please ensure you have your facts straight before making accusations.

Scylere · Post by **Scylere** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:44 pm

You make it sound like evils are the cause of pk's and trouble here, which I strongly disagree with.
As I said before, the tendency I've perceived among goods is to get all high and holy, should they ever encounter an evil.
Several times when I, as an evil, have been travelling the world map, people of "goodly" alignment have come up to me and started bullying me, theatening me, calling their accomplices, etc. Sometimes until a pk situation is reached.

Let me reexplain this, because the point is being lost. I was not pointing fingers at evils, so there is no need to be defensive.

If you have seen goods getting "high and holy" then 500 bonus experience for them. That is what goods are supposed to do. In the dnd world it's good vs evil. Good destroys evil just as much as evil does good. It's completely in character for any evil to right out kill a good, as it is a good to kill an evil. If you're not rping that, then you are not playing a good alignment right. Granted there are exceptions of people who like to see the fall of evil without violence, but it's all still the same. Does a good have to go out of their way to kill an evil, no, but if he does, he should be heralded as a hero among the villages and towns. The same applies for evils. Good wants to destroy evil. Evil wants to destroy good.

So, if your evil is hanging around a place where they might find a lot of good, then expect some reprecussions. If your evil is harrassing goods, mentally, physicallyl, indirectly, expect reprecussions. The same as if a good wanders around Zhentil or the Orc Camp or into a drow city.

Which reminds me of something else, goods coming down on other goods. In that 7 goods vs 3 evils pkill, the goods had every right to kill the evils. Yet afterwards, goods were complaining and whining about this and that. That's so ridiculous, it's not even funny. Really, armies of goods should have been hunting those evils down and burning their bodies in the name of their gods and factions. For some reason, some postmodern idea of tolerance and getting along with everyone seeps into the game. I guess it's hard to avoid as we are of that era.

Again, my point is not to point fingers at goods or evils, but to remind us of what our alignments mean. And going back to my original post in this thread, it is those epic battles of good vs evil in the fantasy setting that make any story, any game, any mud, any dnd game exciting.

BUT FK is not pkill oriented. It's rp oriented. Which is awesome, and I wouldn't want it any other way. Therefore, my good is not going to hunt down everyone he's discovered is evil. Then how do we have good vs evil battles? Through focused and developed rp, which are the things that myself and many others have been suggesting in this thread. It's the one on one, small pkills which are what, in my opinion, we should be lessening.

Rhytania · Post by **Rhytania** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:06 am

DnD is a lot more than just good vs evil. There are varying shades of evil as there are good. What they mean when we say goods act all "High and Holy" is when a PC just looks at you and assumes your evil or you must be evil becuase of <blank> and immediately wants to instigate a pk or leave. When in reality, Evil and Good are just difference of opinions. Short of being a Cleric, Paladin, or Spellcaster, you wouldnt even know who was good or evil just by looking at them.

A merchant who undercuts his competition by monopolizing a trade good at any cost for the sake of business can be classified as evil, and the Paladin on the genocidal rampage razing a goblin encampment, is he any less evil than the merchant? More evil? What of all the women, children, and gobly babies he just slaughtered? Does it not count becuase they are Goblins? They are sentient beings just like humans so why would their lives cost less?

It all boils down to the fact that evil/good lines can be drawn from different views. And the Goodies rushing to do away with someone who they think is evil just for the sake of them being evil does not make sense to me. Its like what Ceara hinted at even a LG Paladin cannot take a life unless he witnessed it doing something wrong, or in defense of himself or another. Thats more a house rule of one of our old DMs, but if you thik about it, it makes sense.

Imagine what the novels would be like if all the goods decided to do away with all the evils. Faerune would be a mess. What I am really saying is if your a good and you want to go evil hunting fine, just have a good reason for it other than the fact that your good and the other person is evil. Dont shun or disallow any RP that may form just for the sake of the PKILL, and lastly if you are PKILL hungry and you get stomped by an evil, dont cry and complaign when its all over and you get stomped.

Food for thought:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_ ... #Criticism

Lathander · Post by **Lathander** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 1:00 am

When in reality, Evil and Good are just difference of opinions.

I agree with the idea that there are areas of shade. I also agree that in many cases you can't tell a good from an evil at a glance unless you have some magical/prayer ability. However, I do not agree with the above quote. It is moral relativism and FK/FR doesn't really see things that way. As has been stated many times, Faerun is rather prejudicial. Certain races are assumed evil, others good (eg. Orcs, elves) whether they act that way or not.

Lerytha · Post by **Lerytha** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 9:46 am

I think in terms of orcs/elves, we can excuse the growlygrowly killkill RP (though even then it doesn't have to end in PKILL). However, the biggest problem is the zeal in which good people go to fight againt evil.

I actually think, if a "good" person goes out of their way to kill every evil person, then their alignment may soon take a startling drop to Chaotic Evil. Goods have, as their name suggests, principles. Evils are the ones who kill goods "just because they are goods" (in theory, not practice). Goods should imho be the people who are "unsure" whether it is "right" to kill the evil person. More moralising from the good point of view!

At the moment, its very difficult to defend the killkill objective of many "good" characters. However, of course, if that is the RP of your good character than that is your RP and nobody can/should change it. Its just good to say these things in a discussion and hopefully some of it filters through and gives people a better awareness of what happens on both sides of the "divide", or the evil/good "pond".

~Ol

Scylere · Post by **Scylere** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:05 pm

I apologize if my posts suggested that goods should go around killing every evil they meet. I was meaning that if someone is known to be evil, then there is nothing wrong (in a good person's mind) with going to kill that evil.

Think of this: How many goods have gone out there to kill goblins at the Peak, orcs, drow, kobolds? How many evils have begun their career killing dwarves, gnomes, halflings in the newbie temples?

If a good has moral convictions, then maybe they should think twice when they complete the elemental quests. There's no evil down there:D

My Sunite asked Sune if it was all right to kill Tempurians. The Lady said yes, because a Tempurians ways are evil in the sight of a Sunite. Most faiths have beliefs just like this, that go on top of alignment.

Rhytania posted a link to the Wikipedia descriptions of alignment:

#######################
Lawful Good
"Crusader"

Lawful good characters act as good people are expected or required to act. They combine a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. They tell the truth, keep their word, helps those in need and will speak out against injustices. A lawful good character hates seeing the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good characters believe that an ideal society is one with a well-organized government and law-abiding citizens.

Neutral Good
"Benefactor"

Neutral good characters do the best that a good person can do. These characters are devoted to helping others, and believe that the forces of law and chaos should not moderate the need for people to do good. These characters will support social structures only when they are for the good of the community. If overthrowing an existing social order is what needs to be done to foster good, then they will not be afraid to do so.

Chaotic Good
"Rebel"

Chaotic good characters act where their conscience directs them, with little regard for the expectations of others. They believe firmly in making their own way in life, and dislike others who try to intimidate or use their authority on them.

Chaotic good characters always follow their own moral compass, believing that goodness and righteousness have little use for laws and authority. Although they are always kind and benevolent, their views often do not agree with that of society.

Lawful Neutral
"Judge"

Lawful neutral characters act as law, tradition, or a personal code directs them. Order and organization are paramount to them, and believe that order and organization come about moral righteousness.

These characters may believe in a personal order and live by a code or standard, or believe in order for all and support strong, organized governments.

Lawful Evil
"Dominator"

Lawful evil characters use a society's structure and laws to their own advantage. They will play by the rules without mercy or compassion, to take what they want without regard for whom it hurts. They care about tradition, loyalty and order; but not of freedom, dignity or life. They are comfortable in a hierarchy and enjoy ruling, but are willing to serve out of fear of punishment. They will condemn others not according to their actions, but according to their race, religion, homeland or social rank.

However, because they depend on order and law to protect themselves against those who oppose them on moral grounds, they will almost always honour a lawful oath or contract that they have made, even if it turns out to be unfavourable for them. Because of this, Lawful Evil characters tend to be very careful when giving out their word.

Lawful evil characters may have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood or not letting children come to harm; and like to imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains. Other Lawful evil characters will commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good.

Neutral Evil
"Malefactor"

Neutral evil characters will do whatever they can get away with. They are out for themselves, and will shed no tears for those they kill or harm, whether it was for profit, sport, or convenience. They have no love of order and hold no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make them any better or any more noble. On the other hand, they do not have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil individual has.

Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake like the way a neutral good character believes in good for its own sake. Such characters are also often devoted to some dark deity or society.

Chaotic Evil
"Destroyer"

Chaotic evil characters do whatever their greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drives them to do. They are hot-tempered, vicious and arbitrarily violent. They are simply out for whatever they can get, and are ruthless and brutal in their ways. Typically, the plans of a chaotic evil character are haphazard, and any groups they form are poorly organised. Chaotic evil characters can be made to work together only by force, with leaders lasting only as long as they can thwart uprisings and assassinations against them.
#########################

In real life, yes, we would frown on the killing that goes on with both evil and good in these descriptions above, but FK/FR is FANTASY. It's not real. It doesn't have the same moral guidances as we do. Like is says above, goods commit to good and evils commits to evil.

I think of acting. The audience doesn't want to come see something "real". Yes, people say afterwards "That was so real." That's not what they mean. They mean that they understood the play; it related to them. A good performance is interesting. To achieve this actors must do things that are not what a normal person may do. Yet, even in acting the lines between evil and good are blurred (aka Hamlet). Fantasy is even more extreme than this.

Goods are good to the core. Yes, they may have different views of how to go about being good, but they are all still good and most importantly: oppose evil.

Evils are evil to the core. Yes, they may have different views of how to go about being evil, but they are all still evil and most importantly: oppose good.

Lathlain · Post by **Lathlain** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:44 pm

I'd like to think that not every character, good or evil, were so two-dimensional as to fall into such stereotypes.

The discussion was initially started to discuss whether combined good and evil roleplay is a viability, and I honestly think it is. It's no secret that I predominantly play evil, and some of my better encounters have been with those of opposing alignments. During these times there has been conflict, yes, but very rarely blood.

I'm aware that if evil players are drafted as antagonists in a broad roleplay they will attract a lot of emnity, but provided both parties accept that the path to resolution does not lie with complete destruction of the opposing side (Or at least, it's much less enjoyable for all if that's the route that gets chosen), some good, tension-building and deep roleplay will invariably come of it! There shouldn't need to be any more of an incentive to stop a character from slaughtering someone of opposing allignment on sight, save that it'll be more fun for all if they don't.

Mitchell · Post by **Mitchell** » Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:36 pm

I looked into the references cited by the Wikipedia article on RPG Alignments, particularly the d20 System Reference Document available on the Wizards of the Coast website. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20

Here's how it starts, bolding added by me:

ALIGNMENT
A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil.
Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

It then explains the good-evil and the law-chaos axes individually, then introduces the section Scylere quoted with this heading:

THE NINE ALIGNMENTS
Nine distinct alignments define all the possible combinations of the lawful–chaotic axis with the good–evil axis. Each alignment description below depicts a typical character of that alignment. Remember that individuals vary from this norm, and that a given character may act more or less in accord with his or her alignment from day to day. Use these descriptions as guidelines, not as scripts.
The first six alignments, lawful good through chaotic neutral, are the standard alignments for player characters. The three evil alignments are for monsters and villains.

Bolding added by me, again. I would be very disappointed if all of our characters fit the Wikipedia description of their alignment word by word. Adhering exactly to these stereotypes of alignment would make a character terribly one-dimensional and uninteresting.

Interactions between good and evil characters

Challenges