Goods and difficulty of roleplay

[WagesofSin]

After reading the RP log of Scorvale and "the Doctor", I realized something: Evils are just so much more interesting and easier to roleplay than Goods. In almost everyway. There's a reason why villains in comicbooks and movies are so popular. They are interesting, they have flaws and are more intriguing then your average joe.

Playing a good currently, I am having a lot of trouble developing interesting role play. I feel the problem is that our image of a Good, is so idealistic that it makes role playing one very difficult. If you even do one questionable thing, your goodness is always criticized. Evils can act good when they want and they can act evil when it suits them. All types of behavior is open to them. A good always has to be "good" making for bland and one sided characters IMO.

In FL, goods seem to be based around some cookie cutter archetypes. Of the top of my head come a few: The "righteous zealot" who is usually a follower of Purity/The One and goes around killing evils. The "rational peacemaker" the one who fights only because he needs to, working towards peace in the land as well as peace between cabals(which is for the most part impossible thanks to the nature of this game).

Goods have naturally been the builders and creators; Evils the destroyers. But in FL they just can't change anything. So I ask the player base, how do you make them more interesting? What avenues of roleplay do you think are viable for them?

Also significant, Just how far can a good go in his behavior? Can a good torture an undead? Can a good be mean and cruel to another evil? What about to an undead/demon. Does behavior towards undead/demons figure into normal standards of morality and honor. Is torture evil in itself or does it depend on who you are doing it on? Is wishing for the death of another being something a good would do? Probably not, but what if that other being is a demon/undead/vampire? Perhaps then?

This may lead us to further questions on how morality is portrayed in FL, which I think is something that needs to be dealt with. From my experience, It seems the player base is divided when it comes to our system of morality. Some think we have a relative morality(Good and evil are merely values/opinion based on behavior/other things) or objective(Good and evil are forces of the universe). I always roleplay the latter, firstly because FL is based on D&D that uses objective morality. Secondly, because almost all game mechanics point to this. I believe this is important because it will shape how we answer the above questions.

I hope this sounds coherent, I'm writing in a hurry. Looking forward to your replies.

[Kyzarius]

well, take the WoT series...are white cloaks good?

[Lexi]

Arrogance and a willingness to do 'whatever it takes' to root out evil, or to 'do little evil for the greater good' is always fun.

[WagesofSin]

Arrogance and a willingness to do 'whatever it takes' to root out evil' date=' or to 'do little evil for the greater good' is always fun.[/quote']

The thing is that will get you outcasted, making you no longer good. I think Aithon was a perfect example of this( maybe we can get the players perspective). My memory is fuzzy, but while persuing evils in a town he killed some neutral bystanders. He claimed that he was doing it for the greater good and because of that he got outcasted.

I'd like to know the staffs opinion on this issue on how exactly we are supposed to play goods.

@kyz: Sorry, never read the series

[Deykari]

I feel the problem is that our image of a Good' date=' is so idealistic that it makes role playing one very difficult. If you even do one questionable thing, your goodness is always criticized. [/quote']

Having your goodness criticised isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's part of the roleplay - if you're a recognised, upstanding member of the Order of Light that goes out wreaking havoc on evils like a man possessed, SURE you're going to have other, more conventional goods questioning you.

That doesn't mean your roleplay is wrong!

I have played goods with standard 'cookie-cutter' good roleplay, and I've played a good that felt himself superior to other goods in every possible way, so much so that he pitied them, and would be more inclined to argue with and insult than be reasonable. With the latter, I was criticised by many for my actions, but that did not make me any less good. It simply meant that I was a very different 'good' to other goods.

Once you realise that being good doesn't mean you have to be the stereotypical 'knightly figure', the world is your oyster.

Another way to spruce up goodie roleplay is to introduce flaws into your character. Nobody in real life is perfect, so why should our characters? Why not have a chaotic good that may lash out at other people if they should ever make him feel threatened, good or evil? No intent to kill, but even emoted - it wouldn't necessarily have to make goodie character X any less good to punch goodie character Y in the face in an error of judgement thanks to some deep-set fear. Just one example.

Evils can act good when they want and they can act evil when it suits them. All types of behavior is open to them. A good always has to be "good" making for bland and one sided characters IMO.

Again, think of what being good entails. One example, everyone thinks being good means you have to be honest. Not true - being dishonest doesn't mean you can't have good intentions, if you're being dishonest for the greater good. You could be a lying, cheating scumbag of a good.

I'm not sure I explained what I'm trying to get at very well, as per usual. Hope I've helped some...

Dey

[Kyzarius]

The thing is that will get you outcasted, making you no longer good. I think Aithon was a perfect example of this( maybe we can get the players perspective). My memory is fuzzy, but while persuing evils in a town he killed some neutral bystanders. He claimed that he was doing it for the greater good and because of that he got outcasted.

I'd like to know the staffs opinion on this issue on how exactly we are supposed to play goods.

@kyz: Sorry, never read the series

A truly pious individual would not slay the neutrals, now had you been relentless in your pursuit of evils and not hit innocent bystanders that would be different.

I have played 2 purity avatars, the purging hand of light can be as vicious and as cruel as any evil, but they do it only to evils.

[Deykari]

The thing is that will get you outcasted, making you no longer good. I think Aithon was a perfect example of this( maybe we can get the players perspective). My memory is fuzzy, but while persuing evils in a town he killed some neutral bystanders. He claimed that he was doing it for the greater good and because of that he got outcasted.

I'd like to know the staffs opinion on this issue on how exactly we are supposed to play goods.

@kyz: Sorry, never read the series

Well, take it in the context. I don't know what happened in the situation, but chasing an evil through town and then stopping to kill a few neutral bystanders doesn't sound like it's for the greater good, unless they were attempting to protect the evil - and even then, there would have to be a very good reason to kill them.

With Pamiyn, I played as extreme a Purity zealot as possible - the Will of Irumeru himself even nearly obliterated me once because I looted a goodie that died as a result of attacking me (he was killed by an aggro mob and looted to prevent him capturing me and executing me) - but I was never outcasted. You can play a good 'on the edge' but you just have to be careful not to overstep the mark - there is a limit after all, because being good does mean having a 'good' moral conscience.

Dey

[mya]

The thing is that will get you outcasted, making you no longer good. I think Aithon was a perfect example of this( maybe we can get the players perspective). My memory is fuzzy, but while persuing evils in a town he killed some neutral bystanders. He claimed that he was doing it for the greater good and because of that he got outcasted.

I'd like to know the staffs opinion on this issue on how exactly we are supposed to play goods.

I also never understanded why he was outcasted.

We can kill neutral mobs all we want. But the moment we do it while chasing a Evil, we get outcasted ? :confused:

I have no RP problem when i am playing a good.

The only limitations that i find are interactions with neutrals (PK).

And even then, if they are a unfriendly thief/ninja or suspected member of syndicate, it is enough for me to kill them, and not worry about it.

That and any neutral that attacks me first. By doing that they get a huge sign of "evil in guise of neutral", upon which i will keep attacking even after 3 months RL.

[English lad]

I think the problem is goods are expected to stick strictly to 'good' RP, or get outcassted. However an Evil has a RP that is somewhat more flexible it is given more room.

If you read help Evil, it suggests that Evils should be pretty much constantly backstabbing, unwilling to help each other out, and generally be fighting each other as much as they do goods. However there are a lot of people who don't want to RP their evils like this (understandably) and instead want to have more wide ranging RPs.

Going outside 'traditional' RP on an Evil seems to be far more acceptable than doing it on a Good.

[WagesofSin]

@Dey: I think I get what your trying to say. However, the counter argument to you is, what then, really seperates goods from neutrals. You call it a "different good", but I can say your different is just a neutral in goods clothing. Same things goes for your "dishonest good" isn't one of the traits of being good being honest? Again, what difference then do you have from a neutral. I really am stumped to as what a good really is supposed to be played like. If not a Jesus wannabe, then anything else is just a neutral isnt it?

As for the deal with Aithon, I think he was trying to get an evil thief out of the shadows with fireball or something and killed a few civies. Kyzarius says a good wouldn't do this, but Dey sounds like he's saying that a good can justify this, while Mya is saying explicitly that goods can do this. Frankly I'm not sure. I think a good shouldn't do this, but on the other hand practically it would be impossible to play a good in FL that way(I.E.Never killing neutrals). I am really confused as to how to play a good...

@English lad: You said what I wanted to convey in a much shorter paragragh! I agree!

[Anume]

You will not get outcasted as a good for killing neutral mobs. (

You will not get outcasted for having character flaws as a good. (I want to see a drunkard goody ).

You will get outcasted for attacking (not emote slab but really attacking, even if you do not mean to kill) other goods (exception: challenge).

RP reason: Goods should not attack other goods to "teach them a lesson" or similar as that weakens the other good, now imagine an evil comes allong and kills the stunned / weakened good. The other goods fault entirely.

You will get outcasted for killing other goods, even if it is an accident. (You can rp out of that pretty easily, but recently no such outcast ever bothered.)

[spiegel06]

@wages

Well it total depends on what you wish to do with your good. I mean goods can and should not treat evils the same as others unless you have RP behind it. For example; Raniku, he was a a Tribunal that solely believed that the law should be upheld regardless of anything did that get him critized and insulted? Yes of course. I mean I was working side by side with evils and a Vampire and Necromancer on top of that. But to him the law was as important as his god, @ Eshaine he loved to drink mostly on the job and got a few talking to by Marty. But think of it like this if you were a witch hunter and seeking out undeads and the like why would you treat them the same? I would torture them and try to see what they know so I can better deal with their kind. But I see why you cannot lie to evils, I mean you are good and honest to other goods and maybe so so to neutrals (since they might aid evils). With Rakith, I played a noble monk in the way that I would not fight a unpinned evil unless they attacked me first, and wont kill them unless they were part of Nexus or despair. That was his RP, nothing like the traditional good chars.

Currently I have an idea that I want to put into motion for a char and when I roll my char, things WILL get intresting soley because of the combination, will I get looked down upon by other goods and insulted? Maybe and most likely, but that is his RP.

[mya]

"You will get outcasted for attacking (not emote slab but really attacking, even if you do not mean to kill) other goods (exception: challenge)."

I disagree with this one. I may kick my brother, block his nose in his sleep, pull my cousins hair but none of those means i do not love them. It means emotions have come up, or that i am "educating" them.

It also means that any good doing so would be sure to rescue them if some evil comes into the area. Beating up someone and THEN abandoning them to their fate, that is neutral thought, and should deserve a outcast in my view.

Goods killing goods in challenges = outcast. I agree even tho i have been in the Outcast end several times. Stupid warmasters.

[Twinblades713]

I may kick my brother' date=' block his nose in his sleep, pull my cousins hair but none of those means i do not love them. [/quote']

I wonder what you do to people you -don't- like.

[Anume]

"You will get outcasted for attacking (not emote slab but really attacking, even if you do not mean to kill) other goods (exception: challenge)."

I disagree with this one. I may kick my brother, block his nose in his sleep, pull my cousins hair but none of those means i do not love them. It means emotions have come up, or that i am "educating" them.

It also means that any good doing so would be sure to rescue them if some evil comes into the area. Beating up someone and THEN abandoning them to their fate, that is neutral thought, and should deserve a outcast in my view.

Goods killing goods in challenges = outcast. I agree even tho i have been in the Outcast end several times. Stupid warmasters.

Feel free to disagree, I'll outcast you anyway if you do it

[KRins]

The thing is that will get you outcasted, making you no longer good. I think Aithon was a perfect example of this( maybe we can get the players perspective). My memory is fuzzy, but while persuing evils in a town he killed some neutral bystanders. He claimed that he was doing it for the greater good and because of that he got outcasted.

I'd like to know the staffs opinion on this issue on how exactly we are supposed to play goods.

@kyz: Sorry, never read the series

Don't forget that Aithon

[Pali]

Playing a good currently' date=' I am having a lot of trouble developing interesting role play. I feel the problem is that our image of a Good, is so idealistic that it makes role playing one very difficult. If you even do one questionable thing, your goodness is always criticized. Evils can act good when they want and they can act evil when it suits them. All types of behavior is open to them. A good always has to be "good" making for bland and one sided characters IMO. [/quote']

If you ask me, my most complex, most in-game developed, and most interesting characters in terms of RP have all been goods (excepting my Hive Illithids, which were more amoral than evil anyways).

Personally, I think evils just need to get outcasted and turned neutral more for being too nice to each other.

[Twinblades713]

Personally, I think evils just need to get outcasted and turned neutral more for being too nice to each other.

Yay! I'm playing my evils right!

[English lad]

Personally, I think evils just need to get outcasted and turned neutral more for being too nice to each other.

Quoted for truth - I have no problem with goods being outcasted as often as they are, as long as Evils are held to the same standard.

[Pali]

Let me elaborate on that. It's not just evils who are too nice to each other. It's evils who don't actually act evil period. Fire giant gladiators who don't kill needlessly, who are happy to teach people things or help them gain eq/ranks, who don't have any higher aspirations than just becoming a better fighter... or drow mystic cleric savants who are the same yet want greater knowledge of the arcane rather than better melee skills... these are not evil characters by virtue of the character, they are evil by virtue of the race they picked at character generation, and I think they should be outcasted to neutral. Evil characters should actually be EVIL... they should not be someone you'd meet for a beer just to hang out with.

Evil characters, in my view, should be entirely amoral (the self is the only concern, and others are either tools to be used or annoyances to be squashed without any emotional involvement either way - power hungry chars are often this), sadistic (actively enjoys the suffering of others), a devotee of an evil religion, or mentally ill. If I encounter an evil char that isn't one of these things, they rarely actually seem evil to me.

[Lexi]

I do not think good and evils should be held to the same standards. After all, being good suggests that you have a higher standard, that you never lie, cheat, deceive, murder, etc, without good reason. While a good character could do either of these during specific circumstances, I do not think a good aligned character should consistently act outside the scope of what is right and just.

Evil, on the other hand, do just about anything. Even if anything includes getting friendly with people. As an evil aligned character, I would theoretically offer equipment to good aligned characters in my cabal, as long as it strengthened my position and reputation. And once I got to a position of power, I would do my best to abuse it without stepping over the line and attract unwanted attention from the Immortal leadership.

[HouselessRogue]

I don't recall seeing anywhere that a good cannot lie, cheat or steal. Otherwise what is the purpose of a good thief? Your Lawful Good paladin figure is the one who couldn't do any of those things. NG or CG are different beasts all together. It will all depend on RP but I could see many instances when something along those lines would be perfectly acceptable. I don't see any time when a good killing a good could be justified. Just my two cents.

[Mali]

I have no problem at all Rping goods. On the contrary I find it difficult to make an evil character seem real enough to be worth playing. This is because I am a righteous person. Additionally, I usually find it strange to choose online 'deities' in game. It would be better if the immortal staff were renamed to Mudmasters or Keepers.

That said, people who are good sometimes may appear evil in other ways... just as evil people may have the appearance of being good.

[Mudder]

...or mentally ill. If I encounter an evil char that isn't one of these things' date=' they rarely actually seem evil to me.[/quote']

Pali... Wtf? Lol. Mentally ill = evil? No way. Mentally ill has no alignmemt. You could me mentally ill evil (obvious crazy bastard), just insane and eccentric (possibly neutral), or a righteous man who thinks something nuts and wants to kill all evils.

[Iusedtobesomebody]

Feel free to disagree' date=' I'll outcast you anyway if you do it [/quote']

There goes my 'hard way/easy way tough love' goodie for Knight.