There is no reason to play evil on surface anymore

[Basementfellow]

Accidentally playing evil because you don't know the difference between it and good isn't considered evil here. So yeah.

I'm going to assume this statement is made exclusively within the context of this game, and carries no further reaching implications.

Wut?

I'm so confused as to why these threads always devolve so quickly into this sort of thing. We all play on the same server, for presumably similar reasons -- we want to create a story together. I think we should work together towards that ends rather than be at each-other's throats for petty reasons. And I think a thread in this vein of discussion could be incredibly helpful.

Just take a step back and breathe, man.

[Irongron]

Whoo boy. Already, condescension abounds. I don't think telling people "you're on the surface as a warlock dude you're not supposed to have fun" is extraordinarily helpful, fellas. I hope this doesn't get the thread locked, but I feel the need to tell a story.

I do happen to play a warlock at the moment. An Infernalist built around slowly gaining trust and preaching subliminally evil rhetoric about self-improvement and ambition and what-not. I was cautious not to act too dubiously around those I figured leaned more towards neutral or good.

I fully expected to be caught, eventually. That's part of the fun of playing a villain, especially one which focuses on subterfuge. That grand and terrible realization as so much intrigue finally comes to it's breaking point!

Alas, that's not at all what happened. No, I didn't get caught because I was solo-grinding with my summon out. No, I didn't cast spells in the middle of Cordor. No, I didn't even get caught preaching a veiled version of the Canticle of the Damned like I'd intended to be.

I'd forgotten to turn the glowy-eyes off for a moment (I'm not sure why they came on again when I crossed servers, I'd not cast an Eldritch Blast for a long while) after the server transition to Cordor, and a guardsman happened out of a nearby building to call me out on it, and proceeded to stonewall any attempts my character made to talk his way out of it. This man saw perfectly from an odd angle as he was attending his own business that my character's eyes were flickering with specifically evil magic.

The situation quickly drew a crowd. My character was subjected to mechanically-based-bordering-on-metagame nonsense such as "Summon a badger! That way we'll know you're not pacted!" and more recently in my character's attempt to appeal, "So if I cast Daze on you you'll fail the will save because like you said you're just a defenseless old man, right?" And other such thinly-veiled attempts at securing a victory at all costs.

It was rather anti-climactic. Disheartening, even. I wanted to collaborate to create a compelling narrative, and I thought my RP was interesting enough to facilitate that. Instead, I felt ignored, and almost spitefully shunted out of Cordor. Let me say, I know; bad things happen to good adventurers. It's why I never professed any anger or resentment towards the situation or the people involved. I'm happy to continue playing the character, and having him adapt to the situation. I just can't help but be a little disappointed.

This isn't an issue of someone playing an overtly EVIL caricature and others rightly reacting to it. I'm confused as to why so many jumped straight to that sordid conclusion. And clearly, if even someone who doesn't play a villain at the moment can see it, it's not so small an issue as many may think.

I don't approve of the thrust of this thread, at all. I've played on Arelith for over 10 years and have seen, many times, players of both good and evil insist that the others are solely focused on PvP, and while I've definitely seen players (on both sides) who take that approach (I detest the terms 'team good' and 'team evil') I would never make such broad generalizations.

All of that being said....the above story, if true, is very poor form. Using the limitations of game mechanics to prove a point, and shutting down someone's RP clearly does nothing to further any kind of story.

I'm also not going to be drawn into yet another discussion of Wharftown, which much of the time descended into an interminable PVP faction HQ, and was destroyed not by a development call, but as a direct consequence of RP choices (I had only relatively recently updated the area, and it was one of my favourite locations, it gave me very little joy to see it in ruins). Whether it is Benwick, Wharftown, Kohlingen or Stonehold I'm personally glad that Arelith can change in this fashion.

But I do want to touch on some of the concerns raised in this thread. As I said at the start I really do not appreciate the tone of the original post, in that it is obviously hostile to a large portion of the playerbase and makes what I consider unacceptable generalizations BUT...

Personally I find there is a point buried in here, and one that, a a player and designer, has often frustrated me.

In the Forgotten Realms evil is generally pretty ubiquitous. Many cities have established temples to evil faiths, and many of the populace follow them. In various areas of the modules I've tried to get this across - that the NPCs commoners are not as concerned with evil-doing as many PCs.

Conflict, of course, does happen, but Good vs Evil? I find that a gross simplifaction of the nuanced world of the Forgotten Realms, where paladins can live and work in nations where slavery is commonplace, where mages are often known to conduct experiments in necromancy, and where rival factions within the same faith can conduct long and bloody wars against one another.

That the response to seeing good or evil (depending on which you play) is so often to immediately attempt to MURDER the other person is disheartening.

If the PCs party from Baldur's Gate existed in Arelith they'd have dismembered each other shortly into the first act.

I don't think this applies to the Underdark though, where the conflict between monsters and humans is very real, but elsewhere? Yes, its absolutely overkill in many cases.

I remember the raised eyebrows we caused by having the main NPC priest in Skaljard follow the Talos, because that really is entirely normal, and I would enjoy Cordor a lot more if truly was a melting pot of differing faiths and factions, where conflict was more about intrigue than what is very often unsastisfactory bloodletting.

(I should add that I really dislike the whole notion of 'safe spaces')

Oh, and that we really can express differing points of views without being dismissive and rude to one another. Certain posts in this thread have almost certainly been reported, and will likely result in a word of two with those behind them.

[Aodh Lazuli]

Wut?

I'm so confused as to why these threads always devolve so quickly into this sort of thing. We all play on the same server, for presumably similar reasons -- we want to create a story together. I think we should work together towards that ends rather than be at each-other's throats for petty reasons. And I think a thread in this vein of discussion could be incredibly helpful.

Just take a step back and breathe, man.

I'm entirely calm. I'm just asking for clarification of what the guy is saying.

I'm trying to figure out what the dude is saying.

So far, I have gathered that he is making the following arguments:

- Playing evil on the surface is pointless/difficult. (I contest this, on the grounds of personal experience of playing surface evil.)

- This is due to inconsiderate play from those with good aligned characters. (I also contest this, on the grounds of little to no evidence of such.)

- Players are choosing good alignments to get cheap kills on low level evil aligned characters. (I also contest this, on the grounds it is a massive assumption as to the motivations players hold - Something which is not available to the one making the statement)

- Players do not know the difference between the behaviour various alignments are supposed to exhibit. (I contest this on the grounds that it is impossible to produce a definite and uncontested list of what that might be. Additionally, the implication is the most players are ill informed, or seriously lacking in the faculties to distinguish)

All of this is then couched in "I have no vested interest as I do not play a surface evil character", which leads me to question WHAT experience these observations are being drawn from.

[Vincent]

There's a lot of calling for "subtle" evil roleplay here and as someone who has done far too much of that... it's... very underwhelming after a while. Not in the sense that blending in, trying to convince people you aren't what you seem isn't fun. Of course it is. I've roleplayed two characters with this sort of mentality, however, and it ends up being all you do. Occasionally you have the smallest of opportunities to do something a little daring or naughty or sneaky and for me I just always found it miserably dull.

One such character was eventually ousted, not because of the genuinely shady stuff he'd done... but because I spoke to a Banite and a drow in a civil capacity once, rather than PvPing on sight. People started reacting how I thought they would had he been truly exposed, when instead, he was being condemned for... well, talking to the wrong people, basically. I rolled them soon afterwards. Not a fond memory of mine.

I would much rather a settlement like Wharftown existed that wasn't only for pirates where a character like that could have ended up. Instead I just realised it was over for them, a character I'd invested into for a year or so, because the Underdark is seldom fun in my opinion, and the only roleplay I really had with them was this sort of manipulative Cordorian socialite I'd built up over some time. I've seen many characters suffer similar fates - I had to fight to keep an excellent roleplayer in the Cordor guard, but because he was a Banite, other players saw fit to banish him with little to no roleplay, disregarding all the excellent roleplay I'd seen from him prior in his role as a guardsman.

You may feel that's quite reasonable, considering their faith, but is it fun? It seems to only promote an us vs them mentality and ultimately result in underwhelming PvP (that never solves anything in Arelith). "Bending your roleplay" so that everyone can have fun is considered a way of earning 40 RPR, and I must say I can see why so few players have that amount. Yes, your character who hates everything a bit crooked on two legs might be justified in killing certain players with minimal interaction, but is that ever fun, even for the killer? I've won plenty of PvP scenarios (only one which I initiated) and no. It's the most lacklustre experience. I don't know what people derive from it, but it certainly seems to be the direction an overwhelming abundance of RP in Arelith is pushed towards.

Ravings aside there are plenty of wonderful roleplayers who don't do anything like this. It's just an undeniable fact that I've noticed some extremely questionable roleplay, often from what I assume are supposed to be good-aligned PCs. The other day my friend's level was tested through a will save DC to see if the narrative we'd built about them being a "frail, elderly man" was true. Surely this is pretty much bordering on metagaming.

[Wrips]

In the Forgotten Realms evil is generally pretty ubiquitous. Many cities have established temples to evil faiths, and many of the populace follow them. In various areas of the modules I've tried to get this across - that the NPCs commoners are not as concerned with evil-doing as many PCs.

Conflict, of course, does happen, but Good vs Evil? I find that a gross simplifaction of the nuanced world of the Forgotten Realms, where paladins can live and work in nations where slavery is commonplace, where mages are often known to conduct experiments in necromancy, and where rival factions within the same faith can conduct long and bloody wars against one another.

I completely agree with the part above, Irongron and, in my opinion, is probably the crux of the problem that many people feel while playing evil on surface.

[budii]

snip

snip

I remember the raised eyebrows we caused by having the main NPC priest in Skaljard follow the Talos, because that really is entirely normal, and I would enjoy Cordor a lot more if truly was a melting pot of differing faiths and factions, where conflict was more about intrigue than what is very often unsastisfactory bloodletting.

(I should add that I really dislike the whole notion of 'safe spaces')

Oh, and that we really can express differing points of views without being dismissive and rude to one another. Certain posts in this thread have almost certainly been reported, and will likely result in a word of two with those behind them.

Well, I honestly don't really care if you approve of the thrust of the thread because I really could not think of another way to say it, and presenting a point without making examples of the PROBLEM is pretty much impossible semantics I'm not going to attempt. I was expecting it to be controversial, but this is the best input I've seen from yourself in the years I've played this game. I really think you should reconsider using the material you have for a neutral pseudo-wharftown place, I really think it'd benefit Arelith as a whole.

And yes, I think safespaces are dumb as well, I wouldn't expect a neutral town to be even remotely safe for anyone. I wouldn't bring the issue up with my 3 post total on the forums if I didn't think it was important, and I wouldn't be so adamant about shutting down people who are attempting to derail the discussion if I didn't care about it.

Thank you for the response, this is probably the first time I've ever had a DM actually respond to my gripes with such transparency and self-awareness and after years of sitting around watching this sort of thing happen, you sort of start to believe you'll never get that.

[Basementfellow]

I'm entirely calm. I'm just asking for clarification of what the guy is saying.

I'm trying to figure out what the dude is saying.

So far, I have gathered that he is making the following arguments:

- Playing evil on the surface is pointless/difficult. (I contest this, on the grounds of personal experience of playing surface evil.)

- This is due to inconsiderate play from those with good aligned characters. (I also contest this, on the grounds of little to no evidence of such.)

- Players are choosing good alignments to get cheap kills on low level evil aligned characters. (I also contest this, on the grounds it is a massive assumption as to the motivations players hold - Something which is not available to the one making the statement)

- Players do not know the difference between the behaviour various alignments are supposed to exhibit. (I contest this on the grounds that it is impossible to produce a definite and uncontested list of what that might be. Additionally, the implication is the most players are ill informed, or seriously lacking in the faculties to distinguish)

All of this is then couched in "I have no vested interest as I do not play a surface evil character", which leads me to question WHAT experience these observations are being drawn from.

Fair enough, I'm sorry for making that assumption. It's hard to tell over text. Everyone has their own experiences with the server, and I'm happy that you've not had any problems. Unfortunately, your own experiences hardly count as concrete evidence against other people's experiences.

For the record, I don't at all believe that every player of a Good aligned character is out to get the Evil characters. That is, indeed, a ridiculous assertion that I don't think anyone was ever really trying to make. What I do believe, is that there is a problem with people wanting to win more than they want to create a story, and that it's more widespread than we'd like to believe

[Aodh Lazuli]

Fair enough, I'm sorry for making that assumption. It's hard to tell over text. Everyone has their own experiences with the server, and I'm happy that you've not had any problems. Unfortunately, your own experiences hardly count as concrete evidence against other people's experiences.

For the record, I don't at all believe that every player of a Good aligned character is out to get the Evil characters. That is, indeed, a ridiculous assertion that I don't think anyone was ever really trying to make. What I do believe, is that there is a problem with people wanting to win more than they want to create a story, and that it's more widespread than we'd like to believe

Yeah, I mean the nature of experience is that it is not universal, and will always being a point of contest. It's all tied in with that messy perception thing that probably isn't worth diving into.

I know that it is hard to evidence this stuff in a public debate, which is why I suggested in my second post in this thread that if people think there is misconduct, poor conduct or roleplay which is damaging the environment, it is reported rather than vaguebooking it here for a reaction.

Y'see what I mean?

Edit: Yes, there are players who like to win, and will attempt to do so at the cost of engaging fiction, and that is a great pity. But I do not see that having all that much to do with choice of alignment.

[budii]

Fair enough, I'm sorry for making that assumption. It's hard to tell over text. Everyone has their own experiences with the server, and I'm happy that you've not had any problems. Unfortunately, your own experiences hardly count as concrete evidence against other people's experiences.

For the record, I don't at all believe that every player of a Good aligned character is out to get the Evil characters. That is, indeed, a ridiculous assertion that I don't think anyone was ever really trying to make. What I do believe, is that there is a problem with people wanting to win more than they want to create a story, and that it's more widespread than we'd like to believe

Yeah, I mean the nature of experience is that it is not universal, and will always being a point of contest. It's all tied in with that messy perception thing that probably isn't worth diving into.

I know that it is hard to evidence this stuff in a public debate, which is why I suggested in my second post in this thread that if people think there is misconduct, poor conduct or roleplay which is damaging the environment, it is reported rather than vaguebooking it here for a reaction.

Y'see what I mean?

You don't solve a systemic problem with certain server trends roleplay or otherwise through mass reporting. Nor would I want to ever do that. This may be difficult to believe but having a discussion regardless of how difficult the topic, is considerably more helpful and insightful as to how the problem can be SOLVED then reporting ever will be.

I am not going to recount countless moments of play for you, and I don't believe you're deluded enough to actually think you need evidence to issues that span years regarding the OP unless you're very new, or part of the same circles that partake in this behavior in the first place. Thus I'm lead to believe you probably are hence never seeing the 'evidence'. Honestly this thread has enough posts in it by people experiencing what I've described to be exactly that, so this reads really disingenuously to me.

So I'll answer the question with a bit more merit to it.

Yes you can objectively tell the difference between good and evil, no it does not need to be explained and there are definitive points in which something is good, or something is evil. It's most certainly a gradient but one with multiple tones. The same cannot be said for neutrality and if you cannot tell, it often is that, neutral.

[Aodh Lazuli]

I am not going to recount countless moments of play for you, and I don't believe you're deluded enough to actually think you need evidence to issues that span years regarding the OP unless you're very new, or part of the same circles that partake in this behavior in the first place. Thus I'm lead to believe you probably are hence never seeing the 'evidence'.

Huh?
You're lead to conclude I am what, exactly? It's not really clear from what you're saying.


Edit: to clarify my previous statement regarding perception, I was saying that player experience is unique to that player and is subject to their perception. I was not talking about alignment and its nature, but instead referring to why two players might have wildly different experiences of the game.

[MissEvelyn]

I find it odd to make such a generalizing statement. I, like many others who have already stated it, play an evil surfacer - and I've been having an absolute blast. Just because you might not see an evil character profess their evil ways in the open streets of Cordor does not mean we are not around.

I might also add that Skaljard relies heavily on the evil Furies, so there's an incitement to play an evil character. I can personally attest to that and it's been amazing through and through.

Another thing I'd like to add is that nice does not equal good. An evil character might be civilized, well-mannered, and polite and still be evil.

[Vrass]

Not all neutrals go for stomping evil same as the good guys. My current character is neutral and will work with evil people as long as they dont mess with him or his friends, are not causing trouble, and are not stupid evil mass murdering torture happy psychopaths.

I agree there should be another town on the surface that can host or at least tolerate evil. Sencliff is nice and all but not everyone cares for pirate rp. I am more then willing to build such a town in the toolkit however... i have several areas already made that i hope to one day get added to the servers assuming the admins allow it.

Got any good ideas for such let me know.

[Yma23]

I think the only way to speak about this is to talk in generalites, and keep in mind that they are just that - generalities.

I think it is a little harder to play 'Evil Surfacer' right now because there i sless of a 'shady' settlment (other than Sibiyad) for them to spend time in. Is it possible? Yes it is. But at the same time it's not easy. It's especialy not easy because, as a human, you've really only got the choice of two main 'settlments' to live in, and it's very easy for certain philosophies to control the settlment options. Which is to say, if you are playing a human Warlock that gets 'found out' then you can easily find yourself exiled from the two main places where you can live (Guld and Cordor) and that can make things tough. Because that just leaves Sibiyad (ok yeah fine, but a bit remote) and Sencliff, which is mostly geared to pirates.

Having more neutral housing, or another none racial settlment, area might help that situation a little bit.

That said I think another bigger reason why there is 'no reason to play evil on the surface any more' (which is I agree hyperbolic, but does hold some truth) is that it's just so much easier to play an evil human in the underdark. You get to do all your neat mechanical stuff openly, there's a lot of neutral housing, and you (currently) get almost full access to the surface/surface rp too. It's win/win/win. There's very few drawbacks.

This in turn makes playing 'evil' surfacers unappealing. Which means they don't band together. Which means they don't control the voting blocks they might. Which means they can't take on much power in Guld/Cordor, which means such places remain dominated by 'good', which means that people don't make opnely evil surfacers but instead make outcasts, which... continues the cycle.

[MoreThanThree]

There is a reason to play evil on surface. There is no reason to play a deliberately combative and hostile edgelord on surface anymore.
Regardless of alignment.

[CosmicOrderV]

Something ironic I've noticed, is this very thing actually, of players instantly jumping to conclusions and shunning suspected evil folks -- however, it was actually evil folks, trying to pretend to be good, and jumping the gun on somebody lower level them self, as a sort of mask of their own alignment. Surely they can't be evil if they're chasing out suspected underdarkers? Not to say it's justifiable, I still think that sort of approach to RP gets a lil stifling, but. I'd say it's definitely worth noting that other evil surfacers participate in this behavior as well, simply as a means to get suspicion off themselves.

[Beard Master Flex]

Its been a while since I've regularly played surface but I'd argue it needs ~less~ settlements then the addition of more. My first character on Arelith was a neutral rogue - I kind of just did whatever I thought was fun, sometimes that meant being a thief, sometimes that was being a hero. When the server was smaller I found Cordor to have more then enough ~evil~ going on if you looked hard enough. And it probably still does today.

Why I've moved mostly to Andunor these days is that its so much more closely knit in my experience, and I attribute that largely to the smaller size. You're more then likely to bump elbows everyone eventually.

[Durvayas]

I think the only way to speak about this is to talk in generalites, and keep in mind that they are just that - generalities.

I think it is a little harder to play 'Evil Surfacer' right now because there i sless of a 'shady' settlment (other than Sibiyad) for them to spend time in. Is it possible? Yes it is. But at the same time it's not easy. It's especialy not easy because, as a human, you've really only got the choice of two main 'settlments' to live in, and it's very easy for certain philosophies to control the settlment options. Which is to say, if you are playing a human Warlock that gets 'found out' then you can easily find yourself exiled from the two main places where you can live (Guld and Cordor) and that can make things tough. Because that just leaves Sibiyad (ok yeah fine, but a bit remote) and Sencliff, which is mostly geared to pirates.

Having more neutral housing, or another none racial settlment, area might help that situation a little bit.

That said I think another bigger reason why there is 'no reason to play evil on the surface any more' (which is I agree hyperbolic, but does hold some truth) is that it's just so much easier to play an evil human in the underdark. You get to do all your neat mechanical stuff openly, there's a lot of neutral housing, and you (currently) get almost full access to the surface/surface rp too. It's win/win/win. There's very few drawbacks.

This in turn makes playing 'evil' surfacers unappealing. Which means they don't band together. Which means they don't control the voting blocks they might. Which means they can't take on much power in Guld/Cordor, which means such places remain dominated by 'good', which means that people don't make opnely evil surfacers but instead make outcasts, which... continues the cycle.

I've literally been saying this for a year now.
The surface needs a mechanically evil settlement. Not neutral. EVIL, in order to let evil thrive on the surface again. The key word here is thrive.

Not "Be subtle evil beneath the facade and a corruptive influence until the inevitable point they get discovered and pushed into the UD"

That is not thriving. If evil is not visible until the climax of its story arc and then it gets exiled via PvP from the entire surface because virtually every settlement is working together for the common good because it takes 5 seconds to pass messages from one to another, there is literally no point. If you aren't joining the UD, If you aren't joining the pirates, your PC's story is over, often before it has begun.

The surface needs the capacity for evil to thrive. I mean open "Praise the Godtyrant, praise Talona, praise Loviatar, praise (insert dubious probably evil but vaguely socially acceptable evil deity here)" without immediately getting the hostile button slammed by a half dozen people. We need something akin to a Zhentarim or Thayan fort, with EVIL surface NPC guards.


Personal story time:

My Talonite was in Cordor around the time it had its plague. She is CN, she did nothing but be open about her faith, offer healing, medical treatment, and blessings to ward against disease in exchange for tithes. She did not poison wells, she did not offer to buy works of art or artefacts to defile them(like in the NwN campaign). She was polite and benign. Here was a city with a plague, and here was a priestess who could offer treatment and blessings. It should have been a match made in heaven for RP, and for a week, it was.

By lvl 9, less than two weeks into playing her, she was forced out of cordor by a lynch mob. If she stayed, she would be killed.

I'm going to take this time to point out that the church of Talona is tolerated virtually everywhere, because she is one of the Furies.

Even in the NwN campaign, while Neverwinter itself is in the throes of the wailing death, the church of Talona is operating openly in the city, and that plague killed easily 15x the number of people killed by the plague in cordor. Cordor had a sniffle by comparison.

Now, I'm not going to take a shot here at any particular individuals; the cordor guard did good RP(even if they basically told her she should leave town because they couldn't protect her). But it was very disheartening on an OOC level to get thrown out of the starter city at swordpoint at a level too low to be viable in any other location. It felt like the the dark agencies act was back in force, only this time, there was no wharftown you could run to. Team 'good's immediate jumping to murder. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, is a problem.

Its obviously a culture problem on the server, but also...

Its a design problem, because where wharftown once was a solution (yes, it had a lot of PvP, but its not hard to imagine why that is when team good jumps to PvP at the drop of a hat), the only place for evil to go now is the underdark. If you do not want good to dominate the surface utterly and near continuously, as it does, the function wharftown filled needs to be given to a new location.

[strong yeet]

Yma's post is 100% on the money correct. Just, playing the game -- doing dungeons, selling loot, buying blank wands and scrolls and potions, food, etc. -- is totally impossible if you're persona non grata throughout a bunch of different surface towns. Being persona non grata throughout a bunch of towns is, pretty easily done by being a visible bad man; whether it's a Banite or Talassian or whatever else. You have to be sneaky, or in the Underdark; otherwise the game is stupidly inconvenient on a very basic level.

And that's not to denounce anyone either. There's not much sense to me in a paladin or a Triadist cleric or something along these lines seeing a very visible, clearly evil group of people and not pushing up against it -- they should absolutely be doing that, it wouldn't make sense if they just saw these things and didn't do anything about it barring some extenuating or weird circumstances.

Wharftown being gone has left a pretty visible hole in the fabric of things, but Irongron is definitely right in saying that it was often held as what amounted to a bandit fortress. Something, somewhere should definitely exist that facilitates and accepts bad guys on the Surface and is Not tied to some strangling and obtuse mechanic (hi Sencliff).

[Yma23]

Yma's post is 100% on the money correct. Just, playing the game -- doing dungeons, selling loot, buying blank wands and scrolls and potions, food, etc. -- is totally impossible if you're persona non grata throughout a bunch of different surface towns. Being persona non grata throughout a bunch of towns is, pretty easily done by being a visible bad man; whether it's a Banite or Talassian or whatever else. You have to be sneaky, or in the Underdark; otherwise the game is stupidly inconvenient on a very basic level.

And that's not to denounce anyone either. There's not much sense to me in a paladin or a Triadist cleric or something along these lines seeing a very visible, clearly evil group of people and not pushing up against it -- they should absolutely be doing that, it wouldn't make sense if they just saw these things and didn't do anything about it barring some extenuating or weird circumstances.

Wharftown being gone has left a pretty visible hole in the fabric of things, but Irongron is definitely right in saying that it was often held as what amounted to a bandit fortress. Something, somewhere should definitely exist that facilitates and accepts bad guys on the Surface and is Not tied to some strangling and obtuse mechanic (hi Sencliff).

I know we're sort of echoing each other here, but you're basicaly right. I mean on the one hand - in a way it's good that people /arn't/ tolerating openly evil folk. I mean yeah, why should they? But on the other hand...

It is a difficult balence to keep, I won't lie and I don't think it'll ever be one that'll be perfect. I remember after the fall of Benwick I was actually ooc concerned things would swing the -other- way! With Good having no where to go. (Until the Radient Heart guildhouse was made, there were literally no 'goodly' aligned guildhouses at all, but lots of evil ones. Plust a massive city, plus Sencliff (which was then not Piratey)

So this is always going to be a little bit up and down to both parts of the alignment scale. And I will once more stress- I think that either saying either 'Oh evil is absolutly fine on the surface!' or 'You can't EVER play evil on the surface now!' are both hyperbole. You can still do it, but it is quite difficult, and there's less reason to take on that challenge when you can play 'easy' mode in the underdark. (Not a phrase I thought I'd ever say.)

[I Don~t Feel Like Dancing]

I feel there's a lot of risk for misinterpretation, knee-jerk reactions, and exaggeration in this thread as the topic is a sort that can cause emotions to run a little high - but I've always felt that evil and good have their own societal niches that have to be considered.

The cities that have temples to evil faiths generally support evil faiths (or sects/groups within those faiths) that are functional as part of their society. This generally doesn't pan out well with the outright destructive faiths known for violent clergies with little worth welcoming (The furies of course get welcomed because people are too afraid not to worship them), but goes a little more favorably with those that fit reasonably within the society and offer services that the commonfolk would utilize and find useful (I can recall an example of Sharran clergy offering to help people forget traumatic experiences in some city).

In the same vein as those evil faiths, evil characters operating on the surface have a very uncomfortable and narrow window to act within. If the character resorts to the tier of evil deeds more commonly associated with drow and the Underdark, there's not much reason they would be welcomed on the surface. For those engaging in only minor or subtle evils, or work in evil deeds that can be justified from a societal perspective, there is likely to be more welcome on the surface.

In general the surface on Arelith seems to be a place of neutrality, but neutral characters will often prefer goodly neighbors to evil ones unless the evil ones are putting a good offer on the table and doesn't seem to be a risk to live near (a good neighbor will reliably be helpful in most cases. An evil neighbor is less likely to be so benevolent).

Andunor is a place where evil characters do not need to worry about conforming to society, where anything goes nearly, and will obviously appeal to certain more open and outspoken characters dedicated to evil goals/pursuits.

Sencliff is a bit narrow in its pirate pursuits, as not everyone evil wants to be a pirate, but it offers a home for anyone willing to contribute their skills to gettin' loot and generally ignores most of the evil extremes that more polite society would be offended by.

For my own villainous characters working on the surface, I tend to have them form a backup plan; a sort of "If I end up running into paladins a little too often, how will I continue my works?" course of action to turn to. Generally this involves seeking protection from a larger entity (a government, another evil faith, etc), turning to piracy to find shelter among their kind, or just seeking life in Andunor as an absolute last resort and hoping to have better luck among the Underdarkers than with the paladins.

[-XXX-]

I feel like this is a very complex issue of a design nature, that I can't see being addressable in any moderate manner at this point.

Yma23 voiced an opinion regarding neutral housing as a potential solution. While I wholeheartedly agree, there are some points to consider here:
The vast majority of the server's settlements are of a thematic nature. This is sort of detrimental for two reasons.

• The current state of things is grandfathered - most of the settlements were created in early stages of Arelith's history as a result of an ongoing RP that the Devs wanted to see catered to. But over time a tangible paradigm shift has taken place - instead of settlements being there to cater to desirable RP, they serve to determine it - want to play a cookie cutter elf or a dwarf? Good for you! Stray away from the mold however and be excluded and punished by the subsequently added mechanical significance the settlement system.

• Any neutral housing will eventually compete with the thematic settlements and.... fail! Just look at Greyhammer for reference. Any settlement that offers the players a template to build their character around with the unspoken promise of the help and support of like-minded players playing similar characters will be more successful than any neutral housing that microfractions of the player base will constantly fight and squabble over.
  A viable and interesting source of RP? Without a doubt, but unsustainable for as long as strong and stable thematic settlements are available as an alternative.

[MoreThanThree]

What we really need is paladins that are antagonists and evil protagonists.

[-XXX-]

What we really need is paladins that are antagonists and evil protagonists.

I profusely disagree with that notion. Paladins should be and remain paladins. I believe what we need is for traditional villains (banites, talassians, aurilites, etc.) to be able to achieve paladinlike social status in order to get what you're suggesting.

[Cerk Evermoore]

I think a small part of the issue is I find incumbents incredibly hard to unseat. A lot of factions have had a pretty clear line of succession for half a year or longer. I just feel bad for the newer players who want to one day run things or the faction of evil players who want to take over a town and do a quality interesting storyline. Because it's -really- -really- hard, as evidence by how often incumbents hold onto power until the constant couriers and IC drama finally drives them to make a sandwich loving halfling and live in the Dale.

But the combination of status quo and Harpers(This one is just speculation because they are so secretive! <3 the harper guys. ) may make that impossible for a lot of players. Unless you roll with a large premade group doing character concepts, in which case the world is your oyster.

[Madgamer13]

I've been playing Myrrh for a while now, an open Lawful Neutral Necromancer on the surface. When thinking of the character and her moral coding for surface play, I chose to go with a duty focus on her service to Jergal, and to always prefer speech and intrigue as her first choice of actions in most circumstances. I purposely combined these focuses with Seldarine informed values to the maximal degree, set on a tragic backstory that promotes verbose, wisdom based inflections within how she actualises these values.

A lot of the time I play, people seem to believe Myrrh to be a good aligned priestess, and if they become aware of what she is, confusion becomes evident. Since Myrrh rarely presents immediate threat to life and property, and those that would offend her are able to speak to her in extensive, interactive ways. I've noticed that only a specific type of circumstance tends to defeat the intense walls of words that Myrrh has a tendency to babble; not being able to talk at all.

For the RL months I've been playing the character, I can count on one hand how many times she has been in a circumstance where she wasn't able to speak, and I suspect I know why this is. Many, many more times Myrrh has been in a circumstance of tension, when she would be standing before paladins, rangers, or druids that would be assuming combat readiness to slay what they think is evil. In effectively all of these circumstances, their dragonball-Z-power-up-period becomes halted due to Myrrh simply not reacting in the same way. Instead, she contends those that oppose her with words, and displays of her ideals. To not put the harshness down, and not to 'defeat' those that stands before her.

In most overt PvP circumstances with 'teh ebils', I noticed assumptions being made about behaviours. Where good and evil characters only stay their hands when there is time being dedicated to emoting and dialogue. This is the key to my ability to play a necromancer openly on the surface. Many times in this thread, mention has been given to pvp encounters being unsatisfactory for narrative reasons, and I purposely play to give as many narrative opportunities as possible in tense scenarios. In all of my tense encounters on Myrrh, what would have otherwise turned into a point-and-click-murder-adventure was consistently averted by merely talking and emoting.

I think there is something to be learned of the will to support a developing narrative, as I have seen character behaviours change based on what can be oocly interpreted. If your character is trying to arrest a criminal, and has them cornered, what do they do when they see that criminal 'use an item'? I've watched such enforcers of the law straight up slaughter the criminal for using 'an item'. Any item. Doesn't matter if it was a lense or not, as the combat log doesn't tell you if the animations are the same. Such is where I think pvp issues reside. Lensing out of such an RP circumstance can be seen as oocly trying to opt out, and can cause IC behaviours that may otherwise not happen if the criminal in question performed another action.

Again, this is where my experiences with goodly types accosting Myrrh is different. She doesn't do anything overt to suddenly escape, nor to power-up into combat mode. She doesn't suddenly pop-a-cap-in-yo-Snuggybear by hellballing your feet out of nowhere. When I as a player detect a tense circumstance in which Myrrh could end up in PvP, I start to lengthen my emotes on her stances and where her hands are. I give clues to her intents through her body language. If I'm going to get her to pull out a lense, I'll emote it first, and indicate that an opposing emote from an accosting character can halt it, forcing her to stay there. In short, I cooperate with other players in creating a shared narrative. My attempts thus far have had incredible scenes where the threat of violence wasn't the greatest threat posed, as was seen many, many times in my RP with Myon's crew on Myrrh.

As such, I'd agree with statements here that issue the idea that the good vs evil dynamic on Arelith is an ooc culture problem, rather than a mechanics problem. Thus far, the mechanics on the server have more than served their purposes to provide me a lot of interesting narratives without ruining the fun I am having, and i've been having so much fun due to actually cooperating with shared narratives generated from tense IC moments.

I've no idea what advice could be given to help others that find themselves simply not enjoying evil type characters on the surface, though. I'm not sure if giving them a 'safe space' would work, since the rest of the isle is going to react to such a place anyway, entirely violating the 'safe space' and making it redundant.