Observations on surface "Good" vs Evil "roleplaying" (Moved to "squashing the OOC beef" leave the salt here)

[D4wN]

Either way, I think that this post is largely an OOC attack against Cordor and Radiant Heart players and unhealthy to continue. If you have an issue with a playerbase, settlement or faction and think they are playing in bad faith or breaking a rule, I suggest people raise a report with the DMs or go find another place to RP where you can enjoy yourself. It’s a big server and maybe Cordor or Radiant isn’t for you. That’s okay too! Each to their own.

[MRFTW]

Regarding disguises:

Disguisers have ALL the power. Any disguiser worth their salt has a trickery deity for the godsave, which gives a 10 minute or so window to miraculously come up with a reason to have to go. My character, while stealthing AND invisible, has been caught multiple times breaking disguises because someone has seen the "your disguise was almost broken" godsave dialogue in their combat log and decided to cast true seeing. I have barely logged in to that character lately precisely because of how pointless her 110+ spot actually is.

More on topic:

• Team good likes PvP a LOT for a team that values life and liberty and redemption and all those things.
• Generally, the established characters (and their players) have the right level of nuance with regards to evil, on both sides. They allow some breathing space for these narratives to flourish before co-ordinating a conclusion.
• Trigger-happy "paladins" (the trope, not the class) cause headaches for good and evil players alike and stifle narratives
• It is quite hard to try and work with or against the other factions with these volatile elements present (on both sides)
• Generally, good vs evil RP is quite shallow for a majority of players.
• There is almost zero OOC trust between players. Players think their opposing players want to "win", not "tell a collaborative story".
• Players don't want to accept consequences for their characters from players (or DMs) that they don't trust, and will ignore them.

[AstralUniverse]

My character, while stealthing AND invisible, has been caught multiple times breaking disguises because someone has seen the "your disguise was almost broken" godsave dialogue in their combat log and decided to cast true seeing.

PLEAAAASE report it. This is the worst kind of meta-gaming.

[Algol]

I don't mean to sound too cynical or something but...

How do you know your characters real name has not been betrayed by someone without metagaming? I think it's best to assume the best about people OOCly, and think something has gone wrong IC rather than OOC foul play.

[MRFTW]

My character, while stealthing AND invisible, has been caught multiple times breaking disguises because someone has seen the "your disguise was almost broken" godsave dialogue in their combat log and decided to cast true seeing.

PLEAAAASE report it. This is the worst kind of meta-gaming.

A better solution would be if the popup was removed, as I've suggested in other threads previously. Reporting isn't a guaranteed solution, because:

• Players don't want to accept consequences for their characters from players (or DMs) that they don't trust, and will ignore them.

Realistically, the kind of player that engages in these kinds of behaviours is about £6 away from a new CD key and a complete ban evasion. This kind of player enjoys cat-and-mouse games (hence, disguises) and won't have their player agency impacted by anyone if it goes against their designs for their character.

Staff can combat this behaviour by either removing the popup, making it less possible to metagame, or they can impose a name change and CD key change via a ban. Only one of the two options actually addresses the problem in a meaningful way, the other is just a "toxicity tax".

[Bazelgeuse]

My character, while stealthing AND invisible, has been caught multiple times breaking disguises because someone has seen the "your disguise was almost broken" godsave dialogue in their combat log and decided to cast true seeing. I have barely logged in to that character lately precisely because of how pointless her 110+ spot actually is.

I used to play a character that was dedicated stealth + spotter, i'd break disguises from stealth and then the person I just examined would lens immediately or just turn around and book it at top speed, sometimes in the middle of a conversation. Funny, but frustrating lol

[Amateur Hour]

D&D Player Handbook 3.5 Edition, page 104.

“Good” is defined by a respect for life and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

“Evil” is defined by murdering, killing, and hurting others. We might say it is the inverse of “Good” because it lacks the respect for life and concern for dignity of living beings.

“Neutral” is defined by having enough scruples to recognize murdering/harming random people is bad, but are cool with doing anything to protect their friends and family, or not having commitment or opinions one way or the other.

Respect and concern for the dignity of life is the important part. While it’s more than likely not everyone you meet on the surface has Good on their alignment sheet, I feel it might be helpful to provide the sourcebook definition of “Good.” A lot of these issues feel like they boil down to a lack of respect/interest to engage in each other’s stories as though they were lives worth participating with. This goes for bad guys too who sometimes are so scared of getting caught “too soon” they fail to engage with others.

*edit
It’s worth mentioning that there are some things that force PvP, like one side forcing an impasse or failure to compromise on an issue. In pen and paper the DM can provide you with plenty of non-violent solutions to get the stolen item back from the thief, in Arelith they either comply or you exile/PvP/pariah/etc, so that’s a consideration for the sourcebook alignment. Still, i feel the spirit of it, ‘respect for life’ holds true.

Something I think really needs to be highlighted here is the emphasis on innocent life.

It isn't goodly in the DnD sense to spare a goblin tribe simply because they're sentient life; monsters are monsters and are inherently not-innocent. It's not evil to try to stop a person who's actively advancing the interests of a demon lord simply because they're capable of complex thought. It's not goodly to spare a vampire simply because they can speak (particularly considering in 3e there is no opportunity for redemption for them). And sometimes, people can be motivated by false information, or there could have been a lot of nonviolent options explored before the violence we see.

Everything needs to be taken in context, and from an IC perspective, we probably don't know the complete context of another character's decisions.

[Kenji]

I always emote cringes ICly every time someone asks my Banite "isn't Bane evil?"

[Security_Blanket]

The thing that always sticks out to me is how killing someone would be a pretty traumatizing thing to put yourself through. If you are a "Good" aligned person then it will have an even greater impact on you, I've never seen a paladin bat an eye when it came to killing, nowhere near as much questioning of their morals and methods in the moment that I'd like to see. The character is ultimately detached from the situation because the player is detached from the character.

[Algol]

The thing that always sticks out to me is how killing someone would be a pretty traumatizing thing to put yourself through. If you are a "Good" aligned person then it will have an even greater impact on you, I've never seen a paladin bat an eye when it came to killing, nowhere near as much questioning of their morals and methods in the moment that I'd like to see. The character is ultimately detached from the situation because the player is detached from the character.

A paladin is not a normal person, they believe what they are doing is righteous without a doubt. And while leveling you need to kill hundreds of sentient beings anyway, I don't think it's weird for any character to be desensitized about killing.

[Royal Blood]

The thing that always sticks out to me is how killing someone would be a pretty traumatizing thing to put yourself through. If you are a "Good" aligned person then it will have an even greater impact on you, I've never seen a paladin bat an eye when it came to killing, nowhere near as much questioning of their morals and methods in the moment that I'd like to see. The character is ultimately detached from the situation because the player is detached from the character.

I think it is good narratively to explore death as a concept both like first the physical act of destroying a body is brutal and cruel. Then spiritually? Cheapened a tad cause you can respawn but, I think it's fairly easy to adopt an IC mindset that acknowledges that like characters can come back, but every visit to the fugue could be the last cause no one should know how or why characters are coming back beyond maybe IC plots.

No one wants to gamble with potentially being unable to return.

I think an easy divide between good and evil is that evil is willing to take life to preserve personal power or agendas of personal gain. They're willing to go harder and more brutally than their counter parts but I think it's silly to remove a reverence for death even if you're evil.

For good alignment in my opinion the difference is like the reasoning for killing has to be very pure? It has to be in defense of something good or to protect something. And it changes, killing a UD race? No big deal. But a fellow surface race? That should hit deeper imo!

Even after all of this, you go out adventuring and like slay 2 generations of monsters for some gold coins and an empty chest at the end of a dungeon haha but I think a IRL player brain has gotta be able to associate between like RP activities and activities that are the way they are cause it's a video game haha.

Hope that makes sense, it's a fun idea to consider.

[Marsi]

While frustrating to deal with, I genuinely believe a complacent, cruel, or hypocritical team “”good”” will eventually face a satisfying correction and comeuppance. Maintaining bully power and the moral high-ground is tricky the stress wears down all the components in the system. Character assassination is an effective and under-utilised tool.

[Amateur Hour]

The thing that always sticks out to me is how killing someone would be a pretty traumatizing thing to put yourself through. If you are a "Good" aligned person then it will have an even greater impact on you, I've never seen a paladin bat an eye when it came to killing, nowhere near as much questioning of their morals and methods in the moment that I'd like to see. The character is ultimately detached from the situation because the player is detached from the character.

A paladin is not a normal person, they believe what they are doing is righteous without a doubt. And while leveling you need to kill hundreds of sentient beings anyway, I don't think it's weird for any character to be desensitized about killing.

Worth noting on this as well: if you read the description on most surface writs, it clearly tells you what exactly these people are doing in order to deserve getting mercenaries sicced on them. Your character, in character, is getting briefed on why they're being asked to commit a massacre, and they have options for how to think about their actions in that context. A Goodly character being told about, say, the atrocities that the goblins in the Goblin Fortress are guilty of, is probably going to be primarily motivated to put an end to that destruction with the paycheck being a nice side bonus. A Neutral character is probably going to be primarily motivated by the paycheck while acknowledging that this is making life easier for the common folk of Whidershin Edge. An Evil character is probably going to be motivated by the paycheck (and possibly an opportunity to be a sadist while getting paid, possibly the opportunity to loot without consequence, possibly the fact they're banking up goodwill with the forces that be that they can cash in later, etc).

[great balls of fire]

D&D Player Handbook 3.5 Edition, page 104.
[...]

Something I think really needs to be highlighted here is the emphasis on innocent life.

It isn't goodly in the DnD sense to spare a goblin tribe simply because they're sentient life; monsters are monsters and are inherently not-innocent. It's not evil to try to stop a person who's actively advancing the interests of a demon lord simply because they're capable of complex thought. It's not goodly to spare a vampire simply because they can speak (particularly considering in 3e there is no opportunity for redemption for them). And sometimes, people can be motivated by false information, or there could have been a lot of nonviolent options explored before the violence we see.

Everything needs to be taken in context, and from an IC perspective, we probably don't know the complete context of another character's decisions.

Innocent life applies to the protection there of. The next paragraph defines respect for life and the dignity.

"Respect" does not mean taking a limp pacifist route or treating all life as if sacred. Respect is like in sports; you might not like the blue team, but you're still going to line up and give each other hand shakes after the fight, and acknowledge their skill. Same with your example of demon occultists or vampires, Goodies can and should still oppose and even destroy these villains. The crux is treating their enemy with respect and dignity while doing so.

In Arelith, this is the difference between bullying the Banite for being stinky smelly tyrant who pees his pants and cries to mommy Eldren, and confronting an occultist who has opened a rift to the Plane of Evil with their charges of villainy and woe. One of these is bullying because it is a shallow engagement with the trope of the character, the second implies a back and forth engagement with what the villain has done, why it is bad, and low key rizzes up the villain's infamy status.

In my reading of the passage, I interpret "respect for life and dignity of sentient beings" as respecting that all things are alive, are agents of power that can do real things of consequence, and should be treated with basic dignity and respect. This is why a good guy feeds his prisoners, gives them clothes and a clean sleeping space, even if they're wretched awful bad guys, or why a good guy might do a quick mercy kill on a dying goblin then let it suffer slowly. The same logic can apply to vampires, because they are essentially dead people who don't know they're dead yet, doomed to slowly rot away the parts of them that were human until they become twisted evil caricatures of who they once were, suffering with endless hunger that drives them to hurt others.

Villain stories are cool when they're treated with gravitas. The whole "you get as much as you put in" goes both ways.

[Edens_Fall]

I always emote cringes ICly every time someone asks my Banite "isn't Bane evil?"

ROFL This made my day, thank you.

[98lbs of sad carryweight]

These threads always read a little weird to me. I played a surface necromancer with a skull helmet and the gang didn't even get thrown out of a Wedding in the Radiant Heart, this isn't unique to me though and a lot of people get by fine being evil and without the backing of "Big Clique".

I am sure negative experiences exist, that is both possible and likely but very often I look at whatever funny characters people roll up and most of the time its just a very direct consequence of your actions and choices.

Also, vague posting is really lame and double so if people just pat each other on the back going "Yea, the people who we shall never name sure suck!". It usually also does not help if people make very witty board posts that seem super clever but all it does make people notice your name and associate it with that. My obvious revenge is vague posting now.

I also want to add that Forgotten Realms is a very violent and hostile setting. There are just things that are meant to fight each other. Happens a lot, so characters emulate that.
Cordor cant even throw you out for being a warlock I think.

So whats the ideal situation? Because thats never really said. If I am a Paladin and you got undead out, you will probably get hit by a sword, I am not even sure if they could act differently without breaking the setting?

I don't mean to sound too cynical or something but...

How do you know your characters real name has not been betrayed by someone without metagaming? I think it's best to assume the best about people OOCly, and think something has gone wrong IC rather than OOC foul play.

This is also the only sane approach. Just assume people are good players and not literally out to get you and ruin your day, even if that is true.

[BlinkDelight]

I think most people forget the first ever interaction in the Shadows of Undrentide campaign:

Messarmos: Aha! It is Aluvian! Tell me, Aluvian, surely you have heard how our dear Mischa fared in her last test?

Mischa Waymeet: I have had enough of your jibes, Xanos. You would have done no better.

Xanos Messarmos: On the contrary, dear lady, I tend to do exactly what Master Drogan asks me to do. If he says to rescue the goblin child, then I rescue the goblin child! It is not so difficult.

Dorna Trapspringer: Hmph. I somehow doubt Master Drogan would ask you to rescue anything that he didn't expect you to rob, first.

Xanos Messarmos: Ha ha! You are the aspiring thief amongst us, little Dorna, not I!

Mischa Waymeet: But a goblin is an evil creature, child or no. How can I be expected to lend it aid? It was not a fair test of my abilities.

Aluvian Darkstar: So you would leave a child to die, Mischa? What kind of paladin are you?

Mischa Waymeet: You are not a paladin, Aluvian. I would not expect you to understand. A creature of evil deserves no mercy from the righteous.

Xanos Messarmos: Oh, and of course the child could not be raised differently, could it? It will always be an evil creature?

Mischa Waymeet: This is not about you, Xanos... and besides, you have human blood within to redeem you from your orcish heritage.

Xanos Messarmos: You humans are all the same. Sometimes I wonder just how redeeming my human blood really is. Pfah!

Dorna Trapspringer: Perhaps there is a lesson to learn in Master Drogan's test that you have not thought of yet, Mischa.

[BlinkDelight]

I'll add, if you are a paladin she says this instead:

Mischa Waymeet: You are a paladin, Aluvian, how is it that you feel differently? Ours is the arm of the righteous. There can be no quarter with evil creatures.

[MarkRed]

I'll just chime in here and echo some other points having been made already. (On mobile sorry in advance)

I can't say that I've been in as much PvP as some of the PvP hounds on the server have, but I can say that I've been around 100 conflict PvPs. But one common factor between almost all of them, is that their is almost never longer chatter than 10 words between the sides, good or evil. As soon as you see spells like "Spell Resistance" and "Spell Mantle" active, that side is not looking to talk. They've already accepted that they are only going to do the bare minimum RP to get PvP going as soon as possible so their wards don't wear off. I have seen it from Cordor, Myon, Guldorand and Andunor. Dozens of factions, players and situations.

Too much of conflict here on Arelith is won by meta bullying of players. I've been in a few situations where I wanted to type a long emote out in response to someone walking up to me hostiling and threatening me in character with a five-word emote, and then they end up attacking me because it took me too long to respond, assuming that I'm just standing there and doing nothing as my action, ignoring them.

Get rid of the one line rule, or make it so you have to type more than four words to constitute as "roleplay". Because I can probably count on my hand the number of times the aggressor in a PvP scenario has offered more than a simple Draws sword and points it at X "Prepare to die X!" Regardless of if there was actual roleplay before the scene happened, like months or weeks of build up into eventually PvPing only to have it spoiled by such a weak engaging and then trash talked both IG and OOC regardless of win or lose.

[D4wN]

These threads always read a little weird to me. I played a surface necromancer with a skull helmet and the gang didn't even get thrown out of a Wedding in the Radiant Heart, this isn't unique to me though and a lot of people get by fine being evil and without the backing of "Big Clique".

I am sure negative experiences exist, that is both possible and likely but very often I look at whatever funny characters people roll up and most of the time its just a very direct consequence of your actions and choices.

Also, vague posting is really lame and double so if people just pat each other on the back going "Yea, the people who we shall never name sure suck!". It usually also does not help if people make very witty board posts that seem super clever but all it does make people notice your name and associate it with that. My obvious revenge is vague posting now.

I also want to add that Forgotten Realms is a very violent and hostile setting. There are just things that are meant to fight each other. Happens a lot, so characters emulate that.
Cordor cant even throw you out for being a warlock I think.

So whats the ideal situation? Because thats never really said. If I am a Paladin and you got undead out, you will probably get hit by a sword, I am not even sure if they could act differently without breaking the setting?

I don't mean to sound too cynical or something but...

How do you know your characters real name has not been betrayed by someone without metagaming? I think it's best to assume the best about people OOCly, and think something has gone wrong IC rather than OOC foul play.

This is also the only sane approach. Just assume people are good players and not literally out to get you and ruin your day, even if that is true.

Basically everything that is said in this post and quoted. People are quick to jump to metagaming accusations when they do not care to admit that maybe they made a mistake or maybe a person they trust betrayed them. And the fact of the matter is that this is a RP server and you are playing your class and alignment. Sure, you should be accommodating a little and where it could make sense bend your character a little to facilitate RP and let stories develop, but I have seen so many blatantly evil people who then play the victim card it's frankly really sad. If I'm a Paladin and come across a vampire or animator with Undead out and let them go? You're not RPing your alignment. Simple as that.

[MarkRed]

If I'm a Paladin and come across a vampire or animator with Undead out and let them go? You're not RPing your alignment. Simple as that.

This is the most obvious case that I don't feel like anyone disagrees on. There is no nuance to a situation like this, just black and white. Regardless the matters of playing to your alignment, especially Paladins, is an entirely different can of worms that almost always turns a thread sour beyond belief.

[D4wN]

If I'm a Paladin and come across a vampire or animator with Undead out and let them go? You're not RPing your alignment. Simple as that.

This is the most obvious case that I don't feel like anyone disagrees on. There is no nuance to a situation like this, just black and white. Regardless the matters of playing to your alignment, especially Paladins, is an entirely different can of worms that almost always turns a thread sour beyond belief.

I agree. But this thread already turned into that when OP specifically called out Cordorians and Radiant Heart people.

[MRFTW]

Sure, you should be accommodating a little and where it could make sense bend your character a little to facilitate RP and let stories develop, but I have seen so many blatantly evil people who then play the victim card it's frankly really sad. If I'm a Paladin and come across a vampire or animator with Undead out and let them go? You're not RPing your alignment. Simple as that.

I see this a lot too. I wonder if it's OOC bleed because the player in question felt victimised, instead of their character.

[Ellisaria]

As I was scrolling through social media, I came upon a post that I felt should be shared here. The words at the end, in particular, are what stayed with me.

Montalban said in promo interviews for the film about how he realized early on in his career that a good villain does not see himself as villainous. He may do villainous things, but the character feels that he is doing them for righteous reasons. Likewise with heroes, Montalban said he always tried to find a flaw in the character because no one is completely good or completely evil.

From my perspective, the unfortunate problem is that some players - either intentionally or from ignorance - fail to see that their PCs are absolutely not the heroes or villains that they perhaps mean to depict. Gamers can be a proud lot, and I'd say that a majority of us wear thick blinders when it comes to our own PCs. We have a certain concept in mind that we believe we are faithfully portraying, and any criticisms to contrary are often met with defensiveness, agitation, and outright denial. Thus, I think it's important for players not only to self-reflect, but to acknowledge that what others perceive can be equally valid. Remember The Dress from a few years ago? The two main sides were both right in their own ways.

So too can be RP. However, something I was taught when I first started roleplaying is that a PC should never have to tell someone else their class or alignment - such should be evident through the RP itself. It follows the same general premise as certain real life things, such as if you have to tell someone you're a good leader, you're probably not. Not everyone will agree with this approach, and that's fine - we as players ultimately have the final say about how we want to spend our game time. If certain PCs or players don't satisfy our particular RP needs, then exercising the powerfully simple but underrated option of not engaging with them is all that's needed.

[Ad Astra]

IT'S BLUE