Open question to team evil/morally questionable

[Bobthehero]

Entrenchment, mhmm.

Really doesn't help that a lot of the events that sprout out are so Gate-centric, as there's a load of evil folks who have little to no reason to get involved. When they do, because, say, they stumble on an event, follow up gets complicated, few will share any sort of information, if you decide to go for a way to approach thing that would be ICly fitting for your evil PC, well, you get shut down.

It happened when facing huge threats, too, demons, devils and the likes. Reminds me of the quote in Guardian of the Galaxy:

''Why do you want to save the Galaxy Coast''

'''Cause I'm one of the idiots who lives in it!''

Pretty much, even then, there's moments where you'll be denied. Very engaging.

Wasn't always like that, I do have fond memories of when the Black Abbey was founded, plenty of good NPCs died during all that, some evil plotting that gathered members from a few evil factions. The Devil war, meanwhile, was a something else, there was a lot of server-wide cooperation, bar some few moments.

Not like that anymore, and it sure feels like the above, if you're evil, and there's a plot you enjoy going on, you gotta just impose your presence.

[Almarea90]

Bob makes a very valid point here.
When world ending threats happened my character first instinct was to create a united front and leave differences aside, since we were presented with a destructive force that ultimately would have wiped us all, good and evil alike.
Many times i was told not to bother that evil aligned characters would just ally with the big bad villain to gain personal advantage. This without taking the time to understand such evil character on a case by case basis and gauge their motivations. Everyone seemed sure that they would succeed regardless even without the aid of the more questionable factions. And they were right, because at the end of the day many plots have been sorted without them so why bother?

This is partly due to the rumor mill. By all means rumor mills exist and oftentime can be exploited IC. However there is a tendency of trusting what is rumoured as if it was truth without verifying it personally. I know because I've been myself on that side of the barricade and I don't play evil. There have been countless rumors about Candlekeep, that might have been started from truths but at the tenth passage became something absurd. Very few people came to see for themselves and hear our side of things. The times we caught wind of what was going on it was because a third party said "of course they avoid you you've been doing X y and z all this time" or "X is saying this about you". And often those are altered rumors as well. Now this happens for evil character ten times worse.

[Azroth]

Really doesn't help that a lot of the events that sprout out are so Gate-centric, as there's a load of evil folks who have little to no reason to get involved. When they do, because, say, they stumble on an event, follow up gets complicated, few will share any sort of information, if you decide to go for a way to approach thing that would be ICly fitting for your evil PC, well, you get shut down.

It needs to be the reverse for the following....

It gives evil something to do and the good to chase after. If every tom (person) and harry DM is pulling gate-centric events, and has been a off and on occurrence where serto type hero saves the day events, with DM's mostly focused upon thier own little plots based around that region, we get locked out depending on the faction when let's say... you are an open Zhenterim Agent, and more you get locked out. And to be blunt about 90% of what goes on? I don't think many evil characters in other regions would really care to help, and rather let you all just get hurt. So there's little reason to get involved.

If DM's would have ever used evil player groups and older server cannon factions to then give the hero's something to chase, it gives everyone a chance to do something.

Which is why I tend to not even bother with DM events most days as it makes little sense, when I played characters outside that region. And even some in said region are like: You guy can just... have at it all you want! I have no interest in this. Due to IC reasons

[enginseer-42]

Honestly, I have a bit of an odd question.

Why are Bane, Bhaal, Loviatar, Malar, Myrkul, Shar and Talos banned in Baldur's gate? They aren't or weren't banned in Faerun canon, and it doesn't really make all that much sense. Considering....

Myrkul's Clergy performs important social services.
Talos is Umberlee's superior in the Deities of Fury.
Malar is the god of Hunting. Which I presume people still do when they want venison.
Bane is explicitly called out in canon as permitted/tolerated.
Bhaal... I honestly dunno because I can't find much about his church beyond 'Murders someone once a tenday.'


Like for Shar it kind of makes sense, because Shar's whole schtick is being secretive and culty and it would be a disservice to people wanting to play the secretive type, and Amn specifically permits Shar's worship in canon. And maybe bhaal as well just because Bhaal is literally a god of murderhobo-ism. But why the rest?

[Bobthehero]

Good question, isn't it. For however often the excuse of following the lore is used, it sure rings hollow when you consider that ban list.

[AsuraKing]

Honestly, I have a bit of an odd question.

Why are Bane, Bhaal, Loviatar, Malar, Myrkul, Shar and Talos banned in Baldur's gate? They aren't or weren't banned in Faerun canon, and it doesn't really make all that much sense. Considering....

Myrkul's Clergy performs important social services.
Talos is Umberlee's superior in the Deities of Fury.
Malar is the god of Hunting. Which I presume people still do when they want venison.
Bane is explicitly called out in canon as permitted/tolerated.
Bhaal... I honestly dunno because I can't find much about his church beyond 'Murders someone once a tenday.'


Like for Shar it kind of makes sense, because Shar's whole schtick is being secretive and culty and it would be a disservice to people wanting to play the secretive type, and Amn specifically permits Shar's worship in canon. And maybe bhaal as well just because Bhaal is literally a god of murderhobo-ism. But why the rest?

I've asked this a few times in the past and have been told it's from past plots that are server cannon, granted those were LOOOOONG before my time so no idea. Many of the bans never made much sense to me, but I just use that as reason IC to claim the Gate is dumb about banning god. That's why there's undead literally surrounding the city, cause Myrkul is letting them roam since he's offended and the Gate has no morticians to properly handle their dead.

[Aspect of Sorrow]

Malar is the god of Hunting. Which I presume people still do when they want venison.

Not sure that satisfying hunger requires Malar worship.

[enginseer-42]

Malar is the god of Hunting. Which I presume people still do when they want venison.

Not sure that satisfying hunger requires Malar worship.

No, but deities can detect anything related to their portfolios. And if you're going hunting, that's Malars domain.

Much like sacrifices are made to Umberlee before setting sail, going off hunting while Malar is irritated at you is a bad idea.

[BloodRiot]

Honestly, I have a bit of an odd question.

Why are Bane, Bhaal, Loviatar, Malar, Myrkul, Shar and Talos banned in Baldur's gate? They aren't or weren't banned in Faerun canon, and it doesn't really make all that much sense. Considering....

Myrkul's Clergy performs important social services.
Talos is Umberlee's superior in the Deities of Fury.
Malar is the god of Hunting. Which I presume people still do when they want venison.
Bane is explicitly called out in canon as permitted/tolerated.
Bhaal... I honestly dunno because I can't find much about his church beyond 'Murders someone once a tenday.'


Like for Shar it kind of makes sense, because Shar's whole schtick is being secretive and culty and it would be a disservice to people wanting to play the secretive type, and Amn specifically permits Shar's worship in canon. And maybe bhaal as well just because Bhaal is literally a god of murderhobo-ism. But why the rest?

I've asked this a few times in the past and have been told it's from past plots that are server cannon, granted those were LOOOOONG before my time so no idea. Many of the bans never made much sense to me, but I just use that as reason IC to claim the Gate is dumb about banning god. That's why there's undead literally surrounding the city, cause Myrkul is letting them roam since he's offended and the Gate has no morticians to properly handle their dead.

Addressing Asura's point specifically, I think the past and whatever was done or achieved way back when, should be chains that drag new developments down to the abyss before they even see the light of day. Arguments such as server cannon...sure have their weight, but they should not be immune from contest or change in whatever form. When player initiative gets stopped at the "application stage" by those that have a vested interest in maintaining that status quo, you are stifling interaction and keeping your interested outcome without having to pull your weight to maintain it. The past was already played, sometimes by those no longer active, and new characters and players would just be cut off from having similarly important achievements under their name. We should instead be fostering new interactions, being it cooperative or otherwise. Allowing both those than want to change or initiate something new to have as much of a chance of getting it as those that would then have to work to stop it. Either way new stories are made, and their impacts also recorded into the server cannon.

On a more general response to the thread, non engagement is the antithesis of what we should be doing. Even when characters have irreconcilable differences with other characters, just ignoring them or shutting them down is about the least interesting thing one can do for everyone.

I'm not expecting everyone to suddenly become chummy and accepting with everyone else, but there are ways around that don't compromise character integrity. Just as an example: I'm sure my character, though indirectly, has probably collaborated with large numbers of other people that don't even know he exists. Both team good and team evil on a particular plot, are likely working with at least SOME information that my character discovered and passed along through... other reasonable characters that aren't shut down but don't shut down others either.

[blazerules]

I only ever play good characters. And only ever will.

Most I can say is that some people see Team Evil as a side that always has to lose. At least this has almost always been the case regardless of what RP game I play. Just an antagonist, and antagonists exist purely to be defeated or as foils. Which is, in my opinion, both incredibly boring and equally disrespectful. Because at the end of the day that gets in the way of player agency. Team Evil is also played by players and they have the right to succeed as much if not more than Team Good. They are in fact protagonists of their side of the story and Team Good is the antagonist there.

Honestly what my ideal would be is seeing Team Good on the backfoot. Where Team Evil ends up as the primary power in charge. It would certainly change things up and force people to be as proactive as possible to restore the old "status quo".

I'd also note one reason I look at evil PCs with suspicion is well... their fame for PvP. My builds kinda hot garbage and I don't want to be asked to RP with them somewhere only to get stabbed. But I also have RP PTSD from other games where you can get lured by 1 PC then ganked by a team of 4-10 to permadeath. (Permadeaths fine, the ganking/ambushing isnt fun though)

Other times I just find them kind of funny or hard to take seriously when someone is just dressed in super obviously signposted evil wear. Like pure red and black, tons of spikes and looking all evil like. Best thing to compare this to is imagine a neckbeard weeb wearing a kimono and having a mall wallhanger katana in a so called cool pose. Cringe would be the right word for it.

It's also kind of hilarious seeing somebody dressed as the embodiment of evil just casually sitting by a camp fire and chatting. Such characters are rare (thank god) but in terms of campfire RP with Evil. Hard to find something to talk about? Although I have no idea who is evil and who is not and talk to just about anyone unless they look obviously evil. My character doesn't particularly care and would chat to Batibat even though he's Chaotic Good.

One huge way to do that is making the city dynamic rather than reactive, where the NPCs are seemingly waiting for the PCs to fix their issues.

Why isn't duchess Liia, good-natured woman she is, making a public proclamation to plead to her citizens that the tieflings that are being stoned and lynched are fellow citizens, for example? Why can't that noble who is so desperate to have his son returned hire the Zhentarim because he feels the good natured folk they pleaded to aren't moving fast enough? Or maybe one of the younger, scrapper nobles takes it to the thieves guild.

With how reactive NPCs tend to be it feels like they exist purely for the sake of PCs. Which... technically yes... But in an RP game where they should in all honesty be people with dreams, goals, ambitions, likes and dislikes. Things they'd get mad about and other ways they'd react to situations that are happening beyond just sort of existing.

While I get that DMs probably don't want NPCs to just handle all the issues the issue of the world feeling like it exists just for PCs is not a good one. They either don't feel like real people or come off as lazy, incompetent or uncaring. A proactive world is better than a reactive world. Its more interesting and can feel a lot more alive. This even gives PCs more stuff to bounce off of and react to. And Evil PCs to probe and agitate without specifically needing events.

It happened when facing huge threats, too, demons, devils and the likes. Reminds me of the quote in Guardian of the Galaxy:

''Why do you want to save the Galaxy Coast''

'''Cause I'm one of the idiots who lives in it!''

For me personally I find world ending style plots really boring. They exist to be Black/White easy to pick a side because its been chosen for you type stories. Don't give flexibility for characters to join the opposition.

And honestly if folk could have their ideal scenario, what would it be like?

A story in which BG is the antagonist.

For whatever reason. Be it expansionism or something else. Because frankly BG is the center of everything and if they became a proactive antagonist faction that is the main plot then you could have sides. Good characters may side for or against BG depending on what it is. Same for Neutral and Evil characters. Some lawful folk may keep to BG and you'd have sides that are a lot more grey.

Plus some people have pledged loyalties to BG itself and thus would be put in an awkward position along other vassals. Isn't the Radiant Heart a vassal or something of the like for BG in return for their land? That would create a lot of interesting dynamics and in character drama.

Honestly what I want is a story which is a lot more grey and can have players pick a side rather than have a side chosen for them. With a lot of greys rather than black and white. Such flexibility can get evil characters involved easily enough, especially if they want to cause more chaos or use the situation to further their goals. Plots should let good and bad characters use them to push their agendas.

[DaloLorn]

BG actually seems to be becoming an antagonist right now...

[Azroth]

BG actually seems to be becoming an antagonist right now...

It has been for a long time, if we wanted to get technical. I honestly have never felt most of the so called good-guys of the goodly city (as they like to say) and hero's have ever earned their place as good folks. many of them are fighting on a selfish scale, not all. Just a critique of RP, not a personal attack from me.

[Most Horrible]

Honestly, I have a bit of an odd question.

By all means.

Why are Bane, Bhaal, Loviatar, Malar, Myrkul, Shar and Talos banned in Baldur's gate? They aren't or weren't banned in Faerun canon, and it doesn't really make all that much sense. Considering....

Alright, the 'Dead Three' of Bane, Bhaal, and Myrkul were replaced by one Cyric during the Times of Troubles. Now, whether or not you have played the original Baldur's Gate video game, doesn't change the fact that this server is heavily inspired by it. Not to mention that in that game, the very first non-hostile cleric of Cyric was in fact an NPC called Tiax the Mad, and he was encountered within the prisons of the Flaming Fist for he had been proselytizing the faith of Cyric on the streets of Baldur's Gate.

And if you look over to the Volo's Guide to the Sword Coast, page 13, the primary temples in Baldur's Gate belong to Gond, Tymora, and Umberlee, with shrines dedicated towards Helm, Lathander, Ilmater, and Oghma.

Not to mention that the city itself is very much a merchant city, and during the many years of this server's existence, followers of Bane, Bhaal, Loviatar, Malar, Myrkul, Shar, and Talos have been the primary sources of player generated conflict.

Myrkul's Clergy performs important social services.

The clergy of Myrkul does indeed bury dead, but you do not need Myrkul's worshipers to dig a hole into ground and to say few good words. Not to mention that Myrkul is the deity of dead, who cares very little of the living. Which places the worship of Myrkul directly against the worship of Lathander, who focus on the interests of the living. Thus based on canon lore, the ban is acceptable, with or without any prior player involvement.

Talos is Umberlee's superior in the Deities of Fury.

And Baldur's Gate is a maritime merchant city, the river Chiontar bleeds to the Sea of Swords, which is known for its many dangers, and thus the appeasement of Umberlee makes far more sense than the worship of a deity such as Talos who offers nothing but pure destruction.

Malar is the god of Hunting. Which I presume people still do when they want venison.

A lesser god of the hunt, yes, but also a god of the evil lycanthropes, bestial savagery and bloodlust. Things that do not quite fit the archetype of a merchant city.

Bane is explicitly called out in canon as permitted/tolerated.

And that would be the 4th edition source book, which describes the setting Forgotten Realms campaign setting way after the Time of Troubles, and to be more precise: time when Bane had returned back to life by consuming the body and portfolio of his son: Iyachtu Xvim.

Not to mention that the worship of Helm and that of Bane are easily at odds with one and other. Bane is all about tyrannical oppression, and the worship of Helm easily takes the form of defense against that very oppression. And once again, Baldur's Gate is a merchant city, and the tyrannical oppression from Banites would not truly be in favor of the entrepreneurial and independent spirit of the Baldur's Gate.

Bhaal... I honestly dunno because I can't find much about his church beyond 'Murders someone once a tenday.'

Well, a merchant city is better off without rampart murders by Bhaalite murderhobos. Would you like to visit a city that would kill you for simply being within its wall on the wrong day? Probably not. Thus with the worship of Bhaal banned, city of Baldur's Gate presents a safe harbor for merchants to arrive and to do their trade.

Like for Shar it kind of makes sense, because Shar's whole schtick is being secretive and culty and it would be a disservice to people wanting to play the secretive type, and Amn specifically permits Shar's worship in canon. And maybe bhaal as well just because Bhaal is literally a god of murderhobo-ism. But why the rest?

Worship of Shar is also all about corruption, and forgetting all other aspects of life, to embrace loss and to wallow in its misery. Once again, at odds with the worship of Lathander.

As for the unmentioned Loviatar, it is at odds with the worship of Ilmater.

[Bobthehero]

Bane and Helm are totally compatible, smother someone protectively to the point of overprotecting them. An evil Helmite could easily monitor everyone and everything for their own safety and oppress them just as much as a Banite, there's a reason Helm is neutral, not good.

[Most Horrible]

Bane and Helm are totally compatible, smother someone protectively to the point of overprotecting them. An evil Helmite could easily monitor everyone and everything for their own safety and oppress them just as much as a Banite, there's a reason Helm is neutral, not good.

There can be evil Helmites, and the worshipers of Helm can indeed produce a very oppressive society. But there is also a reason why Helm and Bane are not one and the same deity, there are reasons why Helm himself stands in opposition to Bane, always has, and always will. Helm is the vigilant defender, while Bane simply wishes to lord over all. Thus even the most oppressive and evil Helmite, doesn't quite reach the levels of tyranny shown by the base line Banites.