Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

Furthermore...

aaron22 wrote:Chaotic evil is a broader concept than being a bastion of chaos.

A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

Chaotic evil is drow and that does not embody that at all. The whole of the underdark would not work if it was. There are some books I would like you to read.

I thin that drow might be considered NE. So I shall concede that connection

but how I see chaotic evil and chaotic good should act similarly. Just on opposite spectrums. Your post stated that there are in fact organized chaotic evil. So there is the answer right there.

aaron22 wrote:Chaotic evil is drow

Drow are more neutral evil and even lawful evil on the surface in Lolthian societies.

Rinzler wrote:

aaron22 wrote:Chaotic evil is drow

Drow are more neutral evil and even lawful evil on the surface in Lolthian societies.

Not true. Lolth is CE. Drow society engages in power struggles where chaos is encouraged only when done in such a way where there is the appearance of following laws. Sshamath is likely more neutral evil or lawful evil, but traditional drow society is very much chaotic evil.

chad878262 wrote:

Rinzler wrote:

aaron22 wrote:Chaotic evil is drow

Drow are more neutral evil and even lawful evil on the surface in Lolthian societies.

Not true. Lolth is CE. Drow society engages in power struggles where chaos is encouraged only when done in such a way where there is the appearance of following laws. Sshamath is likely more neutral evil or lawful evil, but traditional drow society is very much chaotic evil.

Yes the act of houses undermining each other is chaotic. On the surface however, if you're caught breaking laws (especially Drow house vs. Drow house) you're put to the sword. So on the surface your appearance is lawful while being secretly chaotic. So I guess it's a bit of both.

Evil is a bit harder than good. The decision to do an evil act is an unpopular decision and therefor you will be unpopular for making such decisions. The decision to do a good act is a popular decision and therefor you will be popular for making such decisions. Popular is about being accepted and therefore easier then unpopular where one is not accepted. Therefore good is easier than evil.

I don't know where I heard it but I recall reading somewhere that if the drow had not been chaotic and maybe if they could just work together better, they would probably have conquered the surface.
They are their own worst enemies.

With the LoD it would be boring if it functioned perfectly and all the evils got together and worked well and accomplish all their goals. Truthfully I would guess there would be all kinds of backstabbery and treachery. Fun opportunities for great conflict RP between factions.
The trick would be keeping the whole LoD from imploding into one big faction war.
My first thought on a solution to the possibility of evils dysfunctional behavior :
Lets say the Cotd faction betrays the Z.U.K. faction. Well the emissary from the Cotd would be ejected from the LoD and the Cotd would need to choose a new emissary. We would want to make being an emissary a very desirable position so that the emissaries would be encouraged to work in the Lod's best interest even if his/her faction is not. Emissaries will often be torn between the two (good times). If the Cotd kept betraying factions during LoD related events/capers/jobs/tasks/dealings, then would of course get a bad reputation, become unpopular and nobody would want to work with them. They would not be kicked out of the LoD but they would most likely be often excluded. The LoD does not punish....but Z.U.K on the other hand is free to wage war on their own terms outside the LoD.

The LoD would not be a faction per say..maybe those organizing may try to manipulate it to their own ends but those ends would be the individual or factions ends. The LoD would indeed be relatively neutral. NE.

Picture a cool new app you can plug into your faction that adds all kinds of new features, options and functionality. It will increase productivity and increase users of your faction. For a nominal fee you too can be a member of the LoD!

Reads like Tekill is volunteering to be the DM for our open-ended evil characters Campaign!!

Thanks mate!

HA!

Great idea though. It might actually work well in the hands of a dm.
It could work in the hands of players, but it would take up a lot more time.

The DM organizing it would still have to cater it to a certain style of evil players. Some of the more racist or totalitarian evils would not want to mix with certain races or religions for example.

Okay so now all we need is a DM and a bunch of factions to volunteer. Weeeèeeeeeeeeejdjfjdjjjejrnbfg!

It is exactly this issue of Guilds being run by a single leader/player, that caused so much woe.

If that leader/player quits or whatever, the guild/faction dies. Doesn't help that many DMs are "stolen" guild leaders!

The majority of guilds/factions that I've started, for example, were precisely made with an idea and desire for there to be no leader, for it to be a round table, some form of anachro-democracy. But experience has shown that if I stop playing regularly—or I get poached to DM —the guild/faction dies/died.

This is why it seems so important that some form of NPC guides every guild, so that if the leadership has to drop out, the importance and validity of the guild can carry on, because the NPC lives on...meaning any current or future DM can work that NPC to the benefit of the guild.

A small but good step forward, I'd say. Is anybody listening?

Steve wrote:It is exactly this issue of Guilds being run by a single leader/player, that caused so much woe.

If that leader/player quits or whatever, the guild/faction dies. Doesn't help that many DMs are "stolen" guild leaders!

The majority of guilds/factions that I've started, for example, were precisely made with an idea and desire for there to be no leader, for it to be a round table, some form of anachro-democracy. But experience has shown that if I stop playing regularly—or I get poached to DM —the guild/faction dies/died.

This is why it seems so important that some form of NPC guides every guild, so that if the leadership has to drop out, the importance and validity of the guild can carry on, because the NPC lives on...meaning any current or future DM can work that NPC to the benefit of the guild.

A small but good step forward, I'd say. Is anybody listening?

QUOTED FOR TRUTH

One of the reasons Phoenix Company, Doron Amar, En Dharasha Everae and I think the Silver Rose have been able to continue on strongly is a council leadership style set up. Where more than one leader leads that group. Each can be on at different times and each has power to agree to a certain amount of things without the others. If the RP is waay too big for one leader to decide then a council vote is required. I.E. major conflict entrance and war fighting among others.

Some of the best guilds have 4-8 strong players and at least 2 of them is a solid choice for leadership. These players need be available for guild meetings at least once monthly and log in at least 3 times a month. Strange enough that is solid play here. Those that have daily time often open their own guilds.........Me I am a guild hobo. Floated around until I finally settled on the Hunters of Vengeance. Where I now hold leadership looking to make it a triumvate at the least and a round table as Steve said at the most.

Lol. I posted in the wrong thread.