Abuse of Nice and what to do.

[theCountofMonteCristo]

So I'm going to try to mirror an event that happened while being vague enough to not call specific people out. My objective is to ask for advice on how to handle such in the future.

Let's pretend that I'm playing a Hawk'in of Bendir and Banites are icky and not allowed. So my Hawk'in finds one and has a choice: Kill them or let them go. I choose to be nice and let them go. A bit later, a second one, same thing. A few hours later the same Banites and their Banite buddies come back and PvP kill me.

I feel like this situation is forcing me to choose between purposefully putting myself at a significant disadvantage, or just kill bashing every Banite I see so they cannot group up like that again without breaking the 24 hour rule. I don't like this situation, it feels very 'gamey' to me. I am open to advice. And to be clear: This happened some time ago, I have spent a while thinking it through and am not here to be bitter/upset.

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

Banites want your hin, their children, and their children's children to lick Bane's boots or die. It's literally baked into their dogma, and neither the NPCs or the Pcs on arelith have been secretive about this, although some are more patient than others.

I respect you trying to be nice ooc, but ic you have no reason to be unless that banite had been kind to you somehow- the banites in question are playing villains (by the world's definition, regardless of how they feel about it. )

I'd encourage you to take an IC stance firmly, and try a tell or something with the players to see about organizing a narrative around it instead. You don't need to feel bad about not being a pushover.

[Dreams]

I think maybe your title is misleading. It seems more like you're taking issue with the fact that some evil characters have taken advantage of your character's good intentions. It is in their best interest to regroup and find you later, certainly if a number of them end up talking and two of their number say 'Yeah, there was this hin harassing us earlier, we got away but it's a slight to Bane.'

There are more options than kill or let them go. You could follow people like that, you could walk with them and talk to them, you could hide and watch them, you could warn them to leave, or you could use persuasive ability to make them leave through nicer conversation. It doesn't necessarily have to be a 2 option outcome, because the context of situations like these greatly change how things play out.

By the time a few hours later comes about, many other factors might have happened. Perhaps the two that you shoo'd off went away and spent the whole time fuming and angry about how they were treated, or maybe they didn't even think about it and it was just coincidence later.

You definitely should not be killing people solely to take advantage of the 24 hr rule restricting them from attacking you again in future.

[Nobs]

Do what you think your character would do.

[Shadowy Reality]

I think maybe your title is misleading. It seems more like you're taking issue with the fact that some evil characters have taken advantage of your character's good intentions. It is in their best interest to regroup and find you later, certainly if a number of them end up talking and two of their number say 'Yeah, there was this hin harassing us earlier, we got away but it's a slight to Bane.'

That is all correct, and this whole thing is within the rules. But the main point is that the player was given an out out of a bad situation. The OP put the choice of what would happen next in the other player's hands. And when the other player came back with other characters, it does not seem to have given the OP the same courtesy.

You can play a villain, do villainy things and still give the other side more than 2 rounds of combat and a visit to the fugue (did you know you can PvP and not kill your opponent? Yes, that seems to be an option many people don't realize is there!). If you don't do this every interaction from here on is going to be buffing, saying a couple of things and just have at it, because trust was broken for anything else.

[Dreams]

This isn't a matter of OOC courtesy. It only seems that way because decisions have been made from an OOC perspective to begin with. You can't assume that the other players you are playing with either expect or actually acknowledge decisions you are making based on OOC thoughts. Where you're saying 'This is giving them an out', they might be thinking 'Hah, I'll be back to get them later'.

A good character letting someone go is entirely within the good aspect. An evil character coming back to finish the job, get revenge, or whatever, is entirely within the evil aspect. Both sides of this seem to be playing to their alignment - OOC doesn't need to be brought into it.

[Ork]

Dreams has the right of it. Try to avoid feeling "cheated" OOC and have the event effect your character profoundly. Your character was lenient and later that aggressor abused that leniency. That should cause some internal conflict for your character that can only promote good character development.

[Shadowy Reality]

That is not entirely right. Alignment alone does not justify IC actions.

Just because I am chaotic evil and it would make sense that I just kill everyone I come across does not make it interesting or engaging roleplay. You are still responsible for making it fun and interesting to whoever you are roleplaying with, even if that means bending your character slightly. That is the essence of the Be Nice rule.

[Bunny]

So I'm going to try to mirror an event that happened while being vague enough to not call specific people out. My objective is to ask for advice on how to handle such in the future.

Let's pretend that I'm playing a Hawk'in of Bendir and Banites are icky and not allowed. So my Hawk'in finds one and has a choice: Kill them or let them go. I choose to be nice and let them go. A bit later, a second one, same thing. A few hours later the same Banites and their Banite buddies come back and PvP kill me.

I feel like this situation is forcing me to choose between purposefully putting myself at a significant disadvantage, or just kill bashing every Banite I see so they cannot group up like that again without breaking the 24 hour rule. I don't like this situation, it feels very 'gamey' to me. I am open to advice. And to be clear: This happened some time ago, I have spent a while thinking it through and am not here to be bitter/upset.

Ic

This is the soldiers dilemma. Identifying the enemy, their threat, and your response. When at peace you less inclined to choose violence. Your comrades will be informed by your casualty and choose differently. Your settlement will change its posture to the threat and the next one on watch will have a different plan and make a different choice.

Ooc
You are experiencing the difference between pve and pvp. Pve is predictable, you know their is conflict. Pvp you don't, the other player has a wide range of responses that you cannot predict. What you are conflicted by is your morality vs the outcome. You chose fairness and set a social expectation the other player would respect that contract. You have to engage them in dialogue for any expectation to be met true. Still there is nothing guaranteeing fairness or equitability. This is why pvp within games is very difficult. Balance and fairness are almost nonexistent in rpgs. The game engine doesn't balance the encounter the way it does in pve. A fighting chance is a fleeting notion. How you grow as a player from this experience has to do with point of view. Was it the choice to not attack the first time? Was it the defeat? Were you surprised? How would you change your choices.

You don't have to become a paranoid banite killbasher but its an acceptable choice. I would think about what you have to become but what small changes you should make to change the situation and experience.

[darthkitteh]

I would assume, that if you drew your blade and challenged them: "I am going to kill you if you dont leave now!"
and they "run" (leave) does that not count as a pvp situation and they must now leave you alone for 24 hours?
As they techincally "lost" a pvp situation by forfiet (running?)...

Would like a DM to say on this, cus im curious
(I understand every interaction is different and cant be easy to blanket one rule for such)

[Ork]

I would assume, that if you drew your blade and challenged them: "I am going to kill you if you dont leave now!"
and they "run" (leave) does that not count as a pvp situation and they must now leave you alone for 24 hours?
As they techincally "lost" a pvp situation by forfiet (running?)...

Would like a DM to say on this, cus im curious
(I understand every interaction is different and cant be easy to blanket one rule for such)

No. The 24 hour rule only applies if someone dies.

Count, I know you've been on Arelith for awhile and have undoubtly experienced similar scenarios before. I know how demoralizing it is when you present future roleplay opportunities to another player and they don't reciprocate. The only advice I have for moments like that is to not dwell on the other player's actions, and use the event to promote your character's development.

[The GrumpyCat]

I would assume, that if you drew your blade and challenged them: "I am going to kill you if you dont leave now!"
and they "run" (leave) does that not count as a pvp situation and they must now leave you alone for 24 hours?
As they techincally "lost" a pvp situation by forfiet (running?)...

Would like a DM to say on this, cus im curious
(I understand every interaction is different and cant be easy to blanket one rule for such)

Well I don't know the specifics of how this worked out - but another way it can go down is like this:

If you kill a pc, and want to raise them - then you need to ask that pc to wave the PvP rule. And that goes both ways.
So let's say that CountofMonteChristo did this (just as an easy example, I've no idea if this actually happened). Their character killed the Banite, then they asked the Banite player if they'd be willing to wave the 24 rule. The Banite said yes and is raised to continue rp. That banite is then also free to PvP Count again, should they wish, as the rule has been waved.

I will say that in many situaitons, I would consider such a reaction to be pretty bad form - but it's an option.

As to the situation itself: Personaly I have three rules for roleplaying:
1) have fun.
2) Make fun for others, or if you can't then at least try not to ruin their fun
3) Play your character.

You can't always manage all three of these, but you should strive to manage two at least. If Count took the decision to spare that person, because they seemed to fit approximatly with those three rules? Good for them! But alas- it seems that it didn't work out, because they took advantage of that good will.

This- as an aside, is one of the great 'Weaknesses' of playing chaotic evil.

Now following the above, the peramiters have probably changed.
Should Counts' character meat the Banites again - it is entirely reasonabl,e IC, that they will presume that said character will not respect any mercy to them. So it makes perfect sense to kill-bash In Character.
It's unlikely such would be fun for said banite, but there you go - actions have consequences.
The question then relies only on how much 'fun' Count thinks it'll be - What the most 'fun' path (or at least the less unpleasent) will be. And that's really up to Count.

Ultimatly if a character has betrayed your characters trust, then there's no reason for you to extend such a trust again. And honestly giving them consequence for their actions isn't a bad thing. To spread word that if you give leeway to Banites, they'll just come back and murder you later? Well. That was based on their decision and maybe they should consider that.#

But that's with 'these specific players.' Or 'these specific characters.'

I don't think the same answer should be a blanket for 'all' characters or 'all' players.

Really I'd jus ask yourself the three questins above
*Is it fun for me?
*Is it fun for the other person?
*What would my character do?

It doesn't sound like you'd much enjoy kill-bashing, and (with other groups/characters) I'd always hold out the hand of trust, and try to do something more interesting. Though perhaps rather than 'let go' you could consider other options, such as Dreams suggested.

But if a character takes this trust and abuses it? Then I'd say you're entirely within your rights to recind it.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

I fundamentally disagree with everyone else in this thread. (edit: except I think GrumpyCat and I are sorta along the same lines)

And I think that notes a problem. I've been in Count's situation many times over, and I've always taken their approach. Doing what your "character" would do is not helpful advice, and this is why the server has a stigma with PvP encounters.

Killing Banites or any character diametrically opposed to your cause, regardless of canon or lore or alignment, is not positive storytelling. Sure, it's storytelling. Sure, it's conflict. But what does it fundamentally achieve?

We have to stop kidding ourselves with thinking PvP is appropriate. Nine times of out ten you shouldn't pull the trigger. Yes, it's logical. Yes, it's reasonable. But what does it *add*? It is not necessary to breed conflict or rivalry; it imposes penalties and creates ambiguous rules-situations; two players are engaging in a mechanical fight to further a story rather than engaging emotionally; and it doesn't actually create an immediate impact. Characters don't die, and sometimes I think it a foolhardy thing to keep IC.

Keep in mind, I think this is in particular to Count's situation - which is faction-oriented conflict. I think you can be more trigger-happy when it comes to interpersonal drama, and individualized conflict. But when we're taking into account 'blanket' motivation? I.e. hurr durr im good, hurr durr ur bad, smite? We have to be strict.

Rivalries and good-vs.-evil conflict does not occur when PCs are red-hued and disliked. The Banites, in this hypothetical, have been extended an olive branch to initiate some kind of roleplay or scenario with Count's characters. The Banites in this situation are so obsessed with winning they see the need to return and PvP Count's characters. These Banites are fundamentally not good at creating a conflict narrative.

And I wouldn't entertain them in the future. I'd report this behaviour to the DMs. I'd be upset. But I wouldn't ever go the route of "in the future, I'm going to be 'ic' and just kill my enemy."

Nah, this isn't a PvP arena, this is a roleplaying server. I come here for the story, and I can't do that over the sound of attack rolls and combat music.

[theCountofMonteCristo]

Thank you Seven, you very eloquently summed up what my thoughts going into this was. At times it has felt like I was 'punished' for giving PC's an 'out' of a situation, and then when the shoe was on the other foot not being afforded the same opportunity. I would much rather it had been some sort of shaming, calling my character names and chasing her off than just "We are four you are one. You die now." To me it felt like I was contributing to the over all story, as well as individual ones, to be rewarded with "We have mechanical power over you so we win."

This isn't a pathway I want to walk down. I've never ever been good at PvP, it isn't why I am here, but this happening just really rubbed me the wrong way. For the most part, I've just been avoiding RPing with folks who do this sort of thing, I don't have interest in giving them my time that I feel is better spent telling a story somewhere else with others.

And thank you Grumpy, you did give me a bit of food for thought on this. I'm still unsure how I want to proceed with similar situations in the future though.

[The GrumpyCat]

Thank you Seven, you very eloquently summed up what my thoughts going into this was. At times it has felt like I was 'punished' for giving PC's an 'out' of a situation, and then when the shoe was on the other foot not being afforded the same opportunity. I would much rather it had been some sort of shaming, calling my character names and chasing her off than just "We are four you are one. You die now." To me it felt like I was contributing to the over all story, as well as individual ones, to be rewarded with "We have mechanical power over you so we win."

Yeah, Seven spoke some excellent truth there. And something I wish more people would consider.

To go back to your post though quickly Count, at the risk of getting philosophical - It's a sad truth that in life, sometimes if you're nice, and kind, and trusting, there are some folk who take advantage of that. And you get burned. And that's well, that's really awful.

So ultimatly you end up with the choice - Do you learn from that, close yourself in a bit more, stop being as nice and open a person as you want to be.

Or do you go 'Well, they were terrible.' and continue on - knowing that you might get burned again.

On what gradient of these two things you fall on will will vary from person to person. But for me, especialy where Arelith is concerned, I'd always rather do the latter. I hope that you will to. Because whilst you're fully entitled to take a harsh lesson away from this - I think it makes a more rewarding experience, and a more friendly server, if you have faith in people.

[BoredGM]

Okay I've tried to look through some previous threads to be current about previous stances or decisions. But I can't it's too much so I just wanted to say I've tried.
I'm new to the server but with years of experience on another server. I suppose I've just enjoyed thinking about things on the forums on both.

I do have opinions and I think they might resemble Seven's more closely than others, but I remember from my other server there was a period of history before I even started. It was something they called guilds, and guild PvP.

Things like guild's controlling this area or that, using groups to help new characters level by securing the areas where they go to finish quests, buffing monsters on quests so that others won't finish them, trying to snipe an update creature to steal their exp. Etc etc. Fast monks doing fast monk things.
I was just glad it was before my time and my time on that server was mainly focused on PvE.

But sometime before I started a major development happened, a server rule. It basically goes "Each player has to agree to any PvP confrontation". Now in a few instances it has cropped up what exactly "agreement" means, but I would actually like to propose an amended rule for Arelith due to this and maybe other threads I've seen in my searches.
"Each player has to verbally agree to any PvP confrontation."

I can discuss reasons, how I got to this having read this thread over again, and how it relates to specific posts, but I just wanted to put it out there and see if it caused a reaction. Maybe it has been discussed before and I'm being a new player, on a server with decades of experience and posts behind it haha.
So what would everyone think of that rule?

[Anomandaris]

But sometime before I started a major development happened, a server rule. It basically goes "Each player has to agree to any PvP confrontation". Now in a few instances it has cropped up what exactly "agreement" means, but I would actually like to propose an amended rule for Arelith due to this and maybe other threads I've seen in my searches.
"Each player has to verbally agree to any PvP confrontation."

I can discuss reasons, how I got to this having read this thread over again, and how it relates to specific posts, but I just wanted to put it out there and see if it caused a reaction. Maybe it has been discussed before and I'm being a new player, on a server with decades of experience and posts behind it haha.
So what would everyone think of that rule?

It’s been talked about and debated. I’m sure you’ll find both opinions readily. IMO it would greatly degrade the quality of the server as people would be changing their rp without the fear of violence knowing they can hide behind permission. I can see so much ridiculous behavior going on behind this “shield,” it would be awful.

I’ve had some bad experiences for sure but generally this isn’t Mad Max with roaming bands of murderous PCs killing everything in sight. If you want to avoid PVP, it’s pretty easy to do so. If you push people, break laws, or go places you shouldn’t (ogre in Cordor) you’re gonna increase your chances drastically, so play around that if you don’t like it.

I don’t pvp that often but would probably not play Arelith if the change was made on principle. We don’t need to protect or insulate ourselves so much from stress. If you die, just respawn, create some rp/char development out of it, and get over it. It should/can affect your character but not you as the player. Death and violence are a reality, and not having control over when it might come your way makes things interesting. When it does...everything is still ok (as a player) you can just game on and roll with it.

Imagine a Drow rolls up to cordor and starts monologuing murdering babies and razing the city. That player isn’t a great sport, so refuses PvP. That doesn’t mean it should be “Die Drow!” Oh look “conflict rp”... either. It happens a lot, “get out or die” then you start talking and take a spell or knife mid sentence (or some other such lazy interaction). I’d rather be on the receiving end of that half the time than have permissive pvp. Because for every one of those, there’s also a bunch of really clever, gracious interactions.

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

I fundamentally disagree with everyone else in this thread. (edit: except I think GrumpyCat and I are sorta along the same lines)

And I think that notes a problem. I've been in Count's situation many times over, and I've always taken their approach. Doing what your "character" would do is not helpful advice, and this is why the server has a stigma with PvP encounters.

Killing Banites or any character diametrically opposed to your cause, regardless of canon or lore or alignment, is not positive storytelling. Sure, it's storytelling. Sure, it's conflict. But what does it fundamentally achieve?

In reference to Seven's post, you'll note that what I recommended you do for advice was take a firm IC stance and stick to it. I don't believe I ever used the words "just killbash them," and I don't believe anyone who sided on the advice of acting IC said that, either. I believe this mentality is actually also a part of the problem being cited.

I said "take an IC stance" and someone heard "KILLBASH THEM IMMEDIATELY OMFG WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?!" People equate "being IC" with "being a rule-breaking jerk." They are not the same, nor are they mutually exclusive, but thinking they are and promoting the OOC narrative that acting IC is automatically not nice or not fun has the collateral side-effect of encouraging people to never act IC during conflict for fear of being conflated with "Not Nice," and to be blunt, that's a boring as hell story IMO.

As was pointed out, there are a plethora of options, and ALL of them are IC. It doesn't have to be death. It simply means that you drop the OOC considerations in an IC conflict- being nice to a player does not mean their character walks away from a conflict happy (or sometimes alive), but it does mean you're not a rule-breaking cheeseball about it and you do your best to give something back to their narrative in exchange. Maybe you fine the person, maybe you get them in trouble with their superior for causing problems.

Do bad things to bad (or good!) characters, just make sure their player at least has an entertaining time of it. That doesn't mean their character doesn't die, it means afterwards they go, "That was kinda cool," or "Your actions have inspired my character to do this dastardly thing!"

[BoredGM]

Imagine a Drow rolls up to cordor and starts monologuing murdering babies and razing the city.

I wanted to let things possibly develop and sit back, but I do have another question about things like this.

Is this even an acceptable scenario within the rules we have now? The actual act and not texting it.
I'm asking because I think there might be lines as to what people might not want to RP. When I first saw the idea about "enslavement RP" I was like wait, isn't that kind of um...dark?
The other side can't just conquer a settlement and start slaying everything with no mercy right?

[Anomandaris]

Imagine a Drow rolls up to cordor and starts monologuing murdering babies and razing the city.

I wanted to let things possibly develop and sit back, but I do have another question about things like this.

Is this even an acceptable scenario within the rules we have now? The actual act and not texting it.
I'm asking because I think there might be lines as to what people might not want to RP. When I first saw the idea about "enslavement RP" I was like wait, isn't that kind of um...dark?
The other side can't just conquer a settlement and start slaying everything with no mercy right?

Any "settlement raid" requires DM approval and oversight. Basically if there are NPCs around, it's a "settlement" and the DM approval is required to simulate the realistic response of the NPCs in the region should an attack happen. There's more to it, but in short, no you can't show up and just assault a city and start murdering everyone without approval etc.

[Wuthering]

You have to look at player psychology here too.

Maybe the OP thought he was being "nice" when he let the Banites go when he could have killed them but maybe they still walked away with resentment over how it went down. The Hawkin here seemed to be in control of the situation and maybe the Banites would rather have just been killed instead of being put in a position where they're supposed to say thanks. Or maybe you were condescending in letting them go and they felt humiliated (not this is what happened, I wasn't there, but just for the sake of discussion.)

I'm not saying they're right to feel that way but just because you think they're supposed to appreciate the favor on an IC and/or OOC level doesn't mean they will, and doesn't mean they won't resent you for it for some reason or another. You just don't know who's on the other side of the screen and what issues they may have, what mood they may be in or if they're just having a bad day.

I know there are things that really bother me but the other player thinks they're just being nice, like someone healing you without asking or RPing first, or a higher level character wandering through and clearing out the room when you're battling something level appropriate-- both cases the person usually expects a thank you like they did a huge favor and I usually just want to tell them to get lost, I didn't ask for your help.

We're all very different people with different playstyles and expectations after all. If people take your perceived generosity in a way you don't expect it may just be best to shrug and move on.

[BoredGM]

And besides the other stuff is part of the be nice rule too...

From the wiki: "...There is a vast age range that plays on Arelith, for this reason, restrict any conduct you may be involved in to a "PG-13" level of interaction..."

[JubJub]

If people get the rep for coming back and attacking those who gave them a choice to leave or die, then they need to expect folks are just going to mash them next time and not give them a choice. Thus avoiding the situation where they come back a few hours later with pals to kill the person that made them leave. For me this falls into great rp would be taking time and planning revenge, where just coming back when more of your group is online seems like the we need to win mentality.

[Arigard]

That is not entirely right. Alignment alone does not justify IC actions.

Just because I am chaotic evil and it would make sense that I just kill everyone I come across does not make it interesting or engaging roleplay. You are still responsible for making it fun and interesting to whoever you are roleplaying with, even if that means bending your character slightly. That is the essence of the Be Nice rule.

With all due respect, the description for 'chaotic evil', or any evil in general is not "You must indiscriminately kill everything in your path". That is a very lazy interpretation that is being used by players to justify their OOC tendencies.

As quoted: "A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious and unpredictable. Thankfully his plans are haphazard, and any groups he forms are poorly organized."

Does this mean that character is more likely to get involved in conflict? For sure. Does it mean if someone is standing in his face calling him a 'dirty evil creature' he's going to react badly and lash out? Sure, almost certain. But even a chaotic evil alignment has motivation and that doesn't necessarily give RP justice to simply hostile everyone they see, just because. They tend to react to things that are going on around them, or pursue destruction, but in a very one dimensional way that isn't too hard to out think, because of their natural isolation.

If someone is playing Chaotic Evil without any kind of engagement, or RP and without RPing their lack of organisation and haphazard nature then they are playing it badly. There are both positives and negatives to pretty much every alignment and the big drawback of Chaotic Evil should be that they are not masterful 'planners' who think their way out of situations, or if they are, they are doing so in a way that has major drawbacks (i.e those plans are built on deceit/mistrust and betrayal, like Drow). The irrational, instinctive hotheads that fly off the handle, do not always do so in the best situations for them.

A Chaotic Evil character that gets into a situation and then leaves, grabs a load of other Chaotic Evil characters, plans their actions for later, organises a well thought out plan etc, is not really representing what Chaotic Evil is. They aren't organized, they don't work well in groups and they shouldn't be constantly in some tight knit gang, with order, structure and tactical/strategic planning. If they are forced together into groups like that (Drow again are a good example) their Chaotic Nature creates an incredibly fragile collective and it underpins everything about their organisation. On the flip side, Neutral/Lawful evil shouldn't have that indiscriminate drive to just want to destroy everything all the time at an instinctive level like Chaotic Evil. That's why Barbarians are traditionally Chaotic, because they fly off the handle, but they usually do so in a way that makes they aren't thinking about the wider 'tactical' nature of what they are doing, which then balances that out.

Here lies the problem with people picking alignments and traits for their characters and cherry picking the things that they like and ignoring the things they don't, it flies in the face with the natural weaknesses with which makes those characters balanced to actually engage with on an RP level. Being able to go out and be hot heated and instinctively lash out is only useful up to a point when it comes with a heavy burden of being easy to isolate and not having a structured organisation around to constantly think/plan/organise with. This is also why it's hard to play Chaotic Evil, especially when you build OOC relationships with people, because it frequently means backstabbing, betraying and generally not working well with others, which some people get upset with on an OOC level and blend the character into the player. That in turn creates situations where you have Chaotic Evil players who are acting out the 'lack of care for others/irrationality' but steer clear of the other side of it because it's hard to do without upsetting people OOC.

If people play to the alignments and stop thinking of RP as a "I'll just come back later when more dudes are online so I can guarantee the W" a lot of the problems of actually playing your character wouldn't be such a problem and people could as an early post suggest, simply play to what their character would do, because in some situations they would benefit and in others they wouldn't and by sticking to their guns and playing it out, over time those positives and negatives would balance out the engagements. At least, that's how the system was designed, but for it to work, it needs to be accurately portrayed and stuck to.

Playing Chaotic Evil is hard, one of the hardest alignments IMO, because it is predicated by the idea that you will at some point betray, or turn on pretty much everyone around you regardless of if they are good, or evil, if they aren't giving you what you want and if you can't force them into doing so.

[Shadowy Reality]

many things

What you quoted was an obvious generalization, made precisely to make a point.
Just because something makes 100% sense from a Roleplay perspective, sometimes we as players do not want to do it, because it will detract from everyone's enjoyment in the long run (sometimes even shorter run).

Many people here were arguing that OOC should be ignored and that actions should be purely taken form an IC perspective. I find that overly simplistic and downright wrong depending on the situation.

Imagine you find a drow sneaking the woods as an elf of Myon. Given all the Roleplay and history involved, killing the drow is an entirely valid IC decision. And you can do that. You can tell the drow you are going to kill him, the drow says something, you toggle dislike and you kill him in a round.

Alternatively, you can choose not to go all out, you can purposedly tune down your prowess, miss a few attacks, maybe use the wrong spells and it so happens the drow escapes. Maybe the drow knows your name now and will seek you later. You still roleplayed your character correctly and you engaged the other player in a far more interesting way than a quick visit to the fugue.

Imagine you do the latter and 15 minutes later the drow shows up with 5 other drow, and they kill your mercilessly. Is that a valid outcome when it comes to Roleplay? Of course, that drow wanted and got revenge. Is it a shitty way to go about it? Yes, because that is the lazy and cheap way to go about it. The drow took the opportunity given to him and just went for the lowest hanging fruit.

Note that the same can happen the other way around, you just need to switch the word drow with elf. Alignment is irrelevant here, ICly both want to kill each other. But we as players understand that that is usually the least desirable outcome.

This is what happened to the OP and I fully understand the sentiment.