"Good"-aligned areas, where do the evil go?

[chad878262]

The biggest issue I see is, I think close to or maybe exactly what Thids' concern is... Someone uses this new area to RP that they slaughtered a town/monastery/goodly aligned temple/whatever...They post on the forums, rumors abound, goodly folks then set up camp outside said area and on sight pvp anyone attempting to enter. Conversely, if it is just an OOC grind spot with no IC Consequences for getting your evil on, then what's the point in slaying those goodly aligned spawns vs. other spawns? If it is all OOC grinding then it matters little what you're grinding against. Whereas with good you would never strike down an innocent/goodly humanoid except perhaps in times of war where you are forced to fight against others that may very well be Neutral/Good aligned. Regardless, evil has no such difficulties as their alignment doesn't simply mean 'against the good guys' and they will kill good/evil/neutral creatures if they feel like it.

[Steve]

It is also possible to take a Good Aligned Monster and set it to hostile, against all PCs.

The OP was about availability to use Smite Good outside, what I assume, would only be PvP or a DM event, considering the current layout of the Server, where you cannot yourself select an NPC and go FULL BLACKGUARD UBER KILL MACHINE on gnomes at breakfast. Or something like that.

If needed, I'm sure I could find some lore based, good aligned monster group that would be protective of their "lands." And that could get into an area design.

Or maybe, based on Thids and Chads comments, we should consider the opposite: why can't Evil minded groups camp an evil area in order to protect it, and reap the benefits from that allegiance/action? Yes, I already know the answer for this, but I welcome others ability to describe it.

[Hoihe]

After a bit of chat on the IRC, I decided to give my two cents.

This proposal can be viewed two ways. First, there's the question: Is there a need for this from a roleplaying perspective? Secondly, there's the question: Is there a need for this from a mechanical perspective?

Let's start with the mechanical perspective. As Smite Good and a few cleric spells only work on enemies of the opposite alignment, having an area with creatures that have Good alignment would be helpful to ease the PVE off Evil aligned clergy and blackguards.

However, the question still stands: Is there a roleplaying reason for this? I say no, and I reason it with the definitions and expected behaviours of alignments.

First off, evil is not a faction. There is no "Team evil versus team good", as evil can be the most varied form of behaviour after Neutral. To gain an evil alignment, all you have to do is actively act in a way that, knowingly, causes others undue discomfort, financial difficulties or death. To be evil you do not need to fight "team good", you just need to play as the average adventurer with even less mercy and even more greed.

Now, you may argue that there are churches and factions that are evil aligned. Yes. However, more often than not (taking Drow, Banite, Bhaalite, Orc, Talassan churches as my examples), these sects often tell their members to fight amongst themselves, to prove themselves the most worthy of their god. Thus, Evil killing Evil is often justified. There was a DM event (amongst many!) that was of an evil tint where two Banites stood at odds, trying to see if they need to kill the other or just simply subjugate/divert them to their own goals.

So in essence, as evil you do whatever you might please. Lawful alignment might limit you, but not too much.

Let's take grinding as an example. Xvarts. Xvarts have a village which you choose to visit and slaughter every member of. Xvarts are evil. However, Good would never murder indiscriminately. At most, that'd be Neutral if not outright evil.

"Let's go kill goblins. I hate them." - Evil action (act of killing) with evil justification: Net evil.

"Let's go kill goblins. We need to make sure they won't hurt anyone else." - Evil action (act of killing) with Good justification: Net neutral, leaning evil. (Yes! Leaning evil)

"Let's do something about those goblins, scare them off or something. We need to make sure they won't hurt anyone else." Good aligned approach, possibly resulting in Evil action (act of killing), Good aligned justification: Net good.

The above shows that most acts of grinding as it is possible without a DM present will either result in Neutral, if not outright Evil alignment shifts as according to http://easydamus.com/. As such, there is no need for a "Good" area as you already get the necessary evil points to keep yourself from falling back to Neutral (due to Apathy to your alignment).


As a side tangent, to the evil who claim there's too many good aligned characters and it's unfair to them, I would, based on http://easydamus.com/, argue that many of the good aligned PCs, -even paladins, dwarves and elves- should in fact be Neutral aligned, not Good, if not outright evil. Good Alignment is a Luxury to have that requires active pursuit of Alturism, actively acting with a respect for all life (Shevarashites!) and personal sacrifice to go against the currents that is society to uphold the previous (a Good aligned elf for example will stand up to his/her peers when they wish to execute an unarmed, obviously non-threatening drow even if it means to lose their respect or his/her standing in society. To not do so would be Apathy towards Alignment, and incur a detoriation towards neutral. And yes, I've seen this happen.). Emphasis on going against the currents that is society to uphold the previous, as society, due to fear, ignorance and leadership is True Neutral at best.

[chad878262]

As a side tangent, to the evil who claim there's too many good aligned characters and it's unfair to them, I would, based on http://easydamus.com/, argue that many of the good aligned PCs, -even paladins, dwarves and elves- should in fact be Neutral aligned, not Good, if not outright evil. Good Alignment is a Luxury to have that requires active pursuit of Alturism, actively acting with a respect for all life ((#2)!) and personal sacrifice to go against the currents that is society to uphold the previous (a Good aligned elf for example will stand up to his/her peers when they wish to execute an unarmed, obviously non-threatening drow even if it means to lose their respect or his/her standing in society. To not do so would be Apathy towards Alignment, and incur a detoriation towards neutral. And yes, I've seen this happen.). Emphasis on going against the currents that is society to uphold the previous, as society, due to fear, ignorance and leadership is True Neutral at best.

I'm not sure this is accurate in the Forgotten Realms. Particularly your example of a Drow. Because Evil is a real thing in FR/D&D and Drow are evil I would argue even good aligned elves would still kill on sight as a non-threatening drow is an oxymoron during the time period we are playing in. Elistraean good camps are non-existant/unknown as of yet. Drizzt is still in the Underdark, I believe and the thought SHOULD be that Drow are reviled and killed on sight when seen on the surface. However, seeing as on our server Half-orcs, Grey Orcs and Tieflings are readily accepted and many players chose to also assume all Drow are good until proven otherwise I suppose this argument holds little weight (unfortunately). From a 1e lore perspective though, it really should not be considered an anti-good action to kill a drow, or more likely take them prisoner and put them to the question to find out where the rest of the raiding party is, what their plans are, which village they are going to raze, etc...

[Hoihe]

As a side tangent, to the evil who claim there's too many good aligned characters and it's unfair to them, I would, based on http://easydamus.com/, argue that many of the good aligned PCs, -even paladins, dwarves and elves- should in fact be Neutral aligned, not Good, if not outright evil. Good Alignment is a Luxury to have that requires active pursuit of Alturism, actively acting with a respect for all life ((#2)!) and personal sacrifice to go against the currents that is society to uphold the previous (a Good aligned elf for example will stand up to his/her peers when they wish to execute an unarmed, obviously non-threatening drow even if it means to lose their respect or his/her standing in society. To not do so would be Apathy towards Alignment, and incur a detoriation towards neutral. And yes, I've seen this happen.). Emphasis on going against the currents that is society to uphold the previous, as society, due to fear, ignorance and leadership is True Neutral at best.

I'm not sure this is accurate in the Forgotten Realms. Particularly your example of a Drow. Because Evil is a real thing in FR/D&D and Drow are evil I would argue even good aligned elves would still kill on sight as a non-threatening drow is an oxymoron during the time period we are playing in. Elistraean good camps are non-existant/unknown as of yet. Drizzt is still in the Underdark, I believe and the thought SHOULD be that Drow are reviled and killed on sight when seen on the surface. However, seeing as on our server Half-orcs, Grey Orcs and Tieflings are readily accepted and many players chose to also assume all Drow are good until proven otherwise I suppose this argument holds little weight (unfortunately). From a 1e lore perspective though, it really should not be considered an anti-good action to kill a drow, or more likely take them prisoner and put them to the question to find out where the rest of the raiding party is, what their plans are, which village they are going to raze, etc...

A prisoner of a faction that is chained and malnourished is non-threatening.

The only thing that is objectively evil are Outsiders, Undead of certain kinds and some native outsiders, aberrations, certain dragons.

[Moltrazahn]

As a side tangent, to the evil who claim there's too many good aligned characters and it's unfair to them, I would, based on http://easydamus.com/, argue that many of the good aligned PCs, -even paladins, dwarves and elves- should in fact be Neutral aligned, not Good, if not outright evil. Good Alignment is a Luxury to have that requires active pursuit of Alturism, actively acting with a respect for all life ((#2)!) and personal sacrifice to go against the currents that is society to uphold the previous (a Good aligned elf for example will stand up to his/her peers when they wish to execute an unarmed, obviously non-threatening drow even if it means to lose their respect or his/her standing in society. To not do so would be Apathy towards Alignment, and incur a detoriation towards neutral. And yes, I've seen this happen.). Emphasis on going against the currents that is society to uphold the previous, as society, due to fear, ignorance and leadership is True Neutral at best.

I'm not sure this is accurate in the Forgotten Realms. Particularly your example of a Drow. Because Evil is a real thing in FR/D&D and Drow are evil I would argue even good aligned elves would still kill on sight as a non-threatening drow is an oxymoron during the time period we are playing in. Elistraean good camps are non-existant/unknown as of yet. Drizzt is still in the Underdark, I believe and the thought SHOULD be that Drow are reviled and killed on sight when seen on the surface. However, seeing as on our server Half-orcs, Grey Orcs and Tieflings are readily accepted and many players chose to also assume all Drow are good until proven otherwise I suppose this argument holds little weight (unfortunately). From a 1e lore perspective though, it really should not be considered an anti-good action to kill a drow, or more likely take them prisoner and put them to the question to find out where the rest of the raiding party is, what their plans are, which village they are going to raze, etc...

A prisoner of a faction that is chained and malnourished is non-threatening.

The only thing that is objectively evil are Outsiders, Undead of certain kinds and some native outsiders, aberrations, certain dragons.

And Charraj! WE all know it...

[Deathgrowl]

Because Evil is a real thing in FR/D&D and Drow are evil I would argue even good aligned elves would still kill on sight as a non-threatening drow is an oxymoron during the time period we are playing in. Elistraean good camps are non-existant/unknown as of yet.

This is inaccurate. In particular the underlined parts, which is just flat out false or a severe misrepresentation at best.

EDIT: Look, I know people really, really, really want the drow to be inherently evil. But they just aren't. It's not true. And the spread of that misinformation really needs to stop.

[chad878262]

Because Evil is a real thing in FR/D&D and Drow are evil I would argue even good aligned elves would still kill on sight as a non-threatening drow is an oxymoron during the time period we are playing in. Elistraean good camps are non-existant/unknown as of yet.

This is inaccurate. In particular the underlined parts, which is just flat out false or a severe misrepresentation at best.

EDIT: Look, I know people really, really, really want the drow to be inherently evil. But they just aren't. It's not true. And the spread of that misinformation really needs to stop.

Ok, let me make it accurate...

In the timeline our server is based on ALL DROW ARE THOUGHT TO BE EVIL BY ALL SURFACE RACES. Look at any First edition AD&D material, novels, source books, whatever... In the 1st edition Drizzt was not known yet, The main/first Elistraeen temple I can find is the Promenade in Undermountain below Waterdeep in 1355 (habitable in 1357) while our in game year is 1352...So during our server timeline Drow on the surface has not occurred unless someone can show any documentation to indicate otherwise. My point is that yes, Drow can be good just as easily as surface elves, dwarves, etc. can be evil, but that doesn't mean that IC interactions should give them the benefit of the doubt as such. Look at some of the early experiences in RA Salvatore's books for Drizzt... Fear, hate, distrust and all together negative reactions should occur.

My point is that during our timeline all Drow absolutely should be ASSUMED to be evil. I am pretty certain they were not introduced as a player race in 1e, only in the Monster Manual. So while my wording may have been poor I take exception to this being a false premise because we are playing pre-time of troubles, we are not playing in the 3.x timeline where Drow are somewhat more common on the surface (though still far from being common or trusted by lore). Specifically the second underlined part about non-threatening drow being an oxymoron is not false in regards to the perception of the populations of the surface, based on our timeline.

[Wyatt]

TBH I started playing 1st Edition AD&D in the early 80's and do not recall drow being in the monster manual at all. I think they might have made it into the monster manual 2 though. Personally, I rp my dwarf as thinking all drow/duergar are totally as evil as orcs, goblins, ogres etc to be killed on sight and eradicated from Toril. Granted, he is a battlerager and dwarves are not particularly well known for their tolerance. I can't help but feel that oftentimes we as players skew toward 21st century ooc tolerance in some of our interactions ic when not careful to avoid it.

[Steve]

Viable and lore-supporting good-aligned monsters:

Guardian Naga

Fog Giant

Pixie

Werebear

Treant (already have these IG?!? in Cloakwood)

Triton (there already exists a DM area under water)

A dungeon with various Task Genies (which could be of various alignments, actually)

I could go on...but do I need to? Of course, these are only words...the real challenge is putting the idea and desire into the mind of a magician...I mean...a developer.

[DM Soulcatcher]

I always say that alignments are topics for philosophers, trully. Whether which action is good or evil, lawful or chaotic- on that one can debate for weeks, if not years.

I, personally, took alignment as guidlines for character's nature/behavior.

But I don't want to derail the topic. Hoihe's link has truth to it, but, again, alignments can be a very rough area for interpretation- especially in Faerun. You see the most of elven societies to be CG. Dwarven- LG. Halflings are mostly neutral. But there are still traditions, customs and ways of those people they follow. History behind them... It's really tricky to say if killing an unarmed drow that is supposedly doing nothing to anyone and let it go is good or evil, for this drow may or may not later slaughter an innocent family of farmers, for example, but I don't want to derail again.

In my humble opinion, as I've read through every post, more portals to other planes is... not something I'd like to see. One has to consider ALL the roleplaying aspects of it. Before you turn around people can start saying "Yeah, i've been to hells and heavens alike. And back. I go there daily to drink tea". The world starts to lose it's luster of mystery and danger it usually holds with such things.

As for implementing good aligned areas for evils to grind, because they just want to murder/slaughter good people...

I agree with Thids. It just doesn't make sense. There is, by no accounts, any place you can make where murdering good aligned society wouldn't realisticly have repercussions and consequences. Such places have alliances. Such places don't just breed like rabids/replenish their numbers just like that. Such places are really high on survivng while most of lands are swarming with all kinds of monsters and creatures (doesn't have to be evil) that will want to kill them. Remorhaz just wants to eat you and melt you alive in its insides. It's hungry.
Plus, one has to take into account roleplaying side of this all.
If you implement a village of dwarves for people to slaughter, don't expect dwarven PCs to stand and just watch it. I'm pretty sure dwarven societies would in a heartbeat start sending help to that settlement or help them relocate.

Treants (Which are already IG) are supposed to be usually neutral good, but unseelie most likely also have their variants.

Fog Giants are either good or evil. Most of them aren't good. Most of them aren't evil. You know the Fog Giant is good if he doesn't want to smash you into paste upon seeing you, but instead offers to guide you through marshes for a small fee. (making auto-hostile fog giants would mean they are surely evil)

Pixies hardly ever appear in bulk force to kill others, instead they just play pranks on people.

The point why I listed from those examples is that... Good-aligned is simply not attacking anyone outrightly on sight (There are, of course, exceptions to that which we all know).

Those are my personal thoughts, and we all can disagree.

Illithid Hive is a good place, a good example. But everyone knows Illithids aren't good. Nobody gives a heck if they die, unless you're Lawful. They are brain-devouring monsters after all

[Steve]

I always like to refer back to this post:

http://bgtscc.net/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=45383

Essentially the answer to the OP is no. Could there be? Sure. It would depend on whether or not a Dev would make it, or, whether or not PCs could define it through Role-play (and what I mean by this is defined in the link above).

[Tekill]

The hardcore alignment discussion was very interesting - and I would like read more of your points of view on it...good (pun) stuff!
But applying this discussion to a suggestion for a new grind spot gave me a headache. As pointed out - there are all kinds of inconsistencies between, Grinding vs RP.

There is different reasons and ways both are done:
- grinding ooc
- RP while grinding (light rp)- such as an adventure to meet the frost king! woo.
- grinding (DM event) while sticking to ones alignment (medium to heavy rp)

A good aligned player can grind Xvarts oocly. He/She can also try RPing some half assed reasons why they are doing it (I usually go along with it), even if its kind of unrealistic. There are all kinds of plot holes and inconsistencies and alignment issues. But the good outweighs the ba- ...er....the fun outweighs the kitsch.

So a "good" aligned area would be potentially be just as kitschy for the hardcore RP'er as all the "neutral or evil" zones that already exist.

The point is though, a "good" aligned area just does not exist. It just seems to be missing to me. I think it would be very stylish to have a couple places that only people of low moral character would shamelessly go- fight some bosses, steal some treasure.

But yeah in the end I suppose it would indeed create conflict.

[lilani]

My view here is that there are areas where evil characters who play their culture & alignment can't goto hunt, so this isn't a good argument to put in some areas with good alignments mobs for evils to go slay. ICly this area can just be an extremely xenophobic people /tribe / creatures that don't allow anyone in.

This can easily be catered for by having an npc at the transition give the player a choice - very similar to the gnom village in rockrun
1) I respect the wishes of your people and will leave you in peace (turn around and leave)
2) I don't care what you want, I'm here to take your wealth and lives (enter the area).

This also prevents good people from jumping in and let's the evil aligned players have some fun in the area without excessive conflict.

[Akroma666]

I have to say, part of the fun of being evil was the PVP.
Over the years its seemed that people have become sour about the idea of PVP as I hardly ever get into it anymore and when I do, it turns sour real fast. I usually PM the player and ask if they agree to PVP consent based on our conversation. I use to be able to do this and we would just chuckle on the outcome and move on. Lately, its turned into a PvP bait where one person might not know the rules or knows them too well and exploits them. Example, insulting a clearly ruthless PC in front of a town guard... Personally I would attack that person then get hauled off to jail... but the rules state I cant attack that person. Even in a crowded city like BG where I imagine people get killed all the time via crowded city assassinations.. you know those docks arent safe with the thieves guild running around.