CLOK BBS

It's come up a few times that PCs tend to only attack harmless NPCs when trying to be evil. As a result, players lose access to certain trainers, guild representatives or healers and GMs get frustrated at having to replace whatever those NPCs provided for a town. It also severely limits the amount of chaos that can be achieved from invasions or attacks when you have to limit your activities to NPC populated areas. In some hamlets, the only NPCs available are located in the infirmaries and so those are common targets, even if they may not normally be the goal of the attacker.

I was thinking it might be nice to have an 'attack crowd' command similar to the 'steal crowd' command so those people being evil can do so without causing extra work for the GMs. For now it's possible to use 'steal crowd' to generate an NPC, but that doesn't seem very in-character to have to try stealing just to get their attention. NPCs generated from 'attack crowd' could vary from innocent bystanders with no combat skill to extremely well-trained soldiers out on a stroll. Or it could be made so that the command would allow you to attack 1 NPC with the chance for several others to come to their aid or spawn and try to flee.

Anyway, it's just a thought. I know we don't have a lot of evil in the player-base right now, but this might help those trying to break into it and, I think, would just add more flavor to the game.

Yes, I agree with this suggestion of Kiyaani's.

I also find glaringly absent any NPC's walking or riding to and from towns as one would expect in this world. We've got those annoyingly repetitive red monsters like bowtruckles and starving wolves but no random human travellers...the sole exception I can think of is the patrolmen that guard the ebonwood pass.

There is a task where a merchant and his body guard is generated. Occasionally the codebase should randomly generate either this pair, or several journeyers, or the people that pop up in infirmaries or the lobby in the Hanged Man in a group of 1-4, or somesuch.

Evil players could attack them, and good players could defend them and get a reward or 50 riln or somesuch if they intervene and drive off the evil player or the hungry monster that attacks them.

I also still believe in my earlier suggestion that in town you be able to see three or four town persons (at most) at random town locations like any one of these

Also here: A beggar
Also here: The town drunk
Also here: A mercenary
Also here: A merchant lady with a cart

or the healed version of any one of the patients in the infirmary of that locale,

whom evil characters could try at their risk to steal from, or kill, or in the case of the merchant lady, buy something like roses or apples from. These semi-named characters would walk around at random.

The lack of these elements take a way a lot of the realism on the highways and in towns.

Randomly picking someone out of a crowd to kill says to me "unstable" rather than "evil", but that's just me. I'm not sure I want to implement this in order to encourage people to just randomly kill NPCs in order to establish their evilosity. Evil, to me, suggests a character has believable and actual goals beyond "just cause chaos and/or death at random."

I think this would mostly result in people trying it out for the evulz, getting into faction trouble, getting upset over actual consequences to their actions, then saying "haha this game sux, peace" and moving on.

I'm not saying no, never, not ever - but I'm going to need some compelling arguments to seriously consider something like this.

Might be fun to add some yon rich, unwary travelers to the roads. That way the evil folk could rob him of his gold and give it to some poor, unworthy slob. That'll prove that they're evil. Hm? Prithee, hm?

Rias wrote:Randomly picking someone out of a crowd to kill says to me "unstable" rather than "evil", but that's just me. I'm not sure I want to implement this in order to encourage people to just randomly kill NPCs in order to establish their evilosity. Evil, to me, suggests a character has believable and actual goals beyond "just cause chaos and/or death at random."

I agree and was about to say this very thing.

Well-played (and well-written) evil characters have goals. A lot of the time they even have laudable goals and what is usually the problem is their methods. A well-played evil character should make you think, should challenge your understanding of morality, should even defy categorization. I don't see a character straight out of a slasher flick attacking random NPCs as evil; I see them as lazy and disruptive. That's closer to trolling than roleplaying, and I don't think it is coincidence that those characters generally can't handle the repercussions of their actions.

My most successful evil character was a cleric of the goddess of war on a D&D MU*. She was one of the two deities charged with protecting all of creation from Chaos and had been doing so for milennia. Thing is, after the elves were deceived by Chaos into attacking her, she figured that if you weren't working directly for her then you were open to corruption and likely a tool of the enemy. So she set out to make everyone work for her.

Goal: Save the universe (Yay!)
Method: Conquer the world (Hm)

Most people never knew my character was evil, and all the time he was working on taking over the criminal underworld and bringing the city into the fold. He often accompanied the good characters on their adventures, even the paladins and the like, because he was useful and managed to not laugh maniacally and kick puppies. They're goals often aligned with his goals because he wanted the city conquered, not destroyed, so protecting it made sense. And then when he did act evil he got a pass because of his good track record.

Being a selfish and conscience-lacking highwayman or mugger is certainly believable. They're not killing people so they can then brag about how they kill people, they're attacking travelers to take their money. Is that evil or "just greedy"? Is greed to that point considered evil? Good questions! It's certainly more compelling and interesting than killing nameless NPCs for no purpose other than because you can, in hopes that people will think you're some cool evil bad-a who kills people for no reason.

i kind of like the suggestion, and here is why.
1. it offers those who do want to play "unstable" or monstrous characters an easy way to do that, that does not require seriously upsetting players OOC.
2. it creates an interesting possibility for having to rp your way into the Assassins. the flip side of that is, if you kill to often, you risk attracting their attention for the wrong reasons.
3. you don't always have to kill. if your character is more a thug than a thief or killer, you can roll someone for their stuff. just knock them out and take what they have.

I am sure i will come up with other reasons, and when i do I will add them, but my point is that I personally think it will allow for a lot more flavors of evil, just as we have many flavors of good.

1) People who enjoy playing "unstable" characters that like to randomly kill people/NPCs "just because" tend to be trolls, and I don't have any desire to accommodate them.
2) Assassins (in general, not just Claw of Shar) are about coldly and efficiently killing off strategic targets of value, not randomly killing people in a crowd just cause.
3) If your intent is theft, you can initiate this already by trying to steal crowd which will spawn an NPC if you fail the pull. I can see wanting to start off by just mugging them, though.

fair enough. perhaps just a mug command then?
I really don't feel particularly strongly either way, just thought it might be neat.

Rias wrote:Being a selfish and conscience-lacking highwayman or mugger is certainly believable. They're not killing people so they can then brag about how they kill people, they're attacking travelers to take their money. Is that evil or "just greedy"? Is greed to that point considered evil? Good questions! It's certainly more compelling and interesting than killing nameless NPCs for no purpose other than because you can, in hopes that people will think you're some cool evil bad-a who kills people for no reason.

Along those lines, does that highwayman or mugger consider themselves evil? Probably not. Few "evil" people consider themselves such, which is another quick test of evil RP: If your character recognizes themselves as evil, you're probably off base.

Rias wrote:Randomly picking someone out of a crowd to kill says to me "unstable" rather than "evil", but that's just me. I'm not sure I want to implement this in order to encourage people to just randomly kill NPCs in order to establish their evilosity. Evil, to me, suggests a character has believable and actual goals beyond "just cause chaos and/or death at random."

I think this would mostly result in people trying it out for the evulz, getting into faction trouble, getting upset over actual consequences to their actions, then saying "haha this game sux, peace" and moving on.

First I want to say that I mean the following the be constructive feedback since you asked for convincing arguments. I can see where you're coming from on this. I really can. And perhaps it does lean more towards unstable than anything else. It also does have the potential for abuse, but I would argue:

1) There are varying degrees of evil and varying evil actions one can take. I don't think it's up to anyone to decide what someone else thinks their character should be capable of as long as they're following the guidelines and policies of the game. If you're in an RP situation where you want to make an example of a random innocent to prove a point, why shouldn't you have that option?

2) If people get upset over the consequences of their actions that's entirely on them and they need to figure out an IC and OOC way to deal with it. If they want to act out to test the system and not as serious RP then it's up to them if they want to take steps to change, adapt their character, embrace their decision or move on. I'm not suggesting this option so people can spam it and be trolls massacring entire villages, I'm suggesting it as a viable RP option for those wanting to play a certain character type.

3) There are three forms of 'Evil' generally accepted. Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil. Neutral and Chaotic Evil kill for any number of reasons, some of which don't make sense to anyone but them. Limiting the in-game mechanics against support of two thirds of evil play-types is just that: limiting. You can see more about alignments here and on other sites as well: http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

Wikipedia: Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_ ... 6_Dragons)>

(Yes I understand this isn't DnD, but not all evil is going to be elevated to the genius-level, scheming, meticulously planned plots that you seem to crave.)

It's certainly more compelling and interesting than killing nameless NPCs for no purpose other than because you can, in hopes that people will think you're some cool evil bad-a who kills people for no reason.

4) I'm not under any delusions that killing innocent people in a town would prove anyone to be a "bad-a", as you put it. If they're defenseless citizens that's a pretty cowardly act, but it's still a viable one for certain character types and I don't think it should be restricted as long as people OOC understand what they're getting themselves into. If they don't they'll find out pretty quick both IC and OOC.

5) You have a god of nightmares and madness and another god of terror and lies. While it may not be the most elegant or devious way to get the job done, I could see people using random acts of violence to instill these feelings in others, to try to get someone's attention, to play a madman or to play someone who is trying their best to be devoted to one of these immortals, even if it's not what that immortal would actually want. Whether or not these actions are misguided, it's what that person chooses to do for their RP.






****SPOILERS****






6) The Blood Cult. Yes they have goals and motives. No their actions are not random. Yes they do send people to hamlets to kidnap, kill and terrorize for a god who craves sacrifice. If they can do it and be legitimately evil, why can't someone else? Seemingly random killings of NPCs may not be as random as they appear at first. I just don't think we should limit this kind of RP opportunity and I'd rather have hope that people use mechanics appropriately than limit them based on fear of people not playing evil as though they're as well-thought-out as Sauron, Voldemort or Palpatine.







*****END SPOILERS*****





I'm sure I could come up with other reasons, but this list will probably get feedback enough as it is. Thanks for all the comments so far. It's been a nice discussion.

Noctere wrote:Might be fun to add some yon rich, unwary travelers to the roads. That way the evil folk could rob him of his gold and give it to some poor, unworthy slob. That'll prove that they're evil. Hm? Prithee, hm?

This is a great idea. I've often thought of something similar for tasks. Mostly fits traders, but the same concept could be used elsewhere.

Trader is contracted to 'escort' a caravan of goods/people between town A to town B, caravan has mobs and a wagon or something that travels at a set rate, caravan can be disabled and looted (nothing amazing, just random riln, mouldy bones, lost sock, commodities, whatever) if all npc's and the trader who has contracted the task is slain or whatever. If the caravan reaches the town successfully reward the trader with.. whatever.

This would encourage Traders to hire people to help protect the caravan, and then you could have other players (baddies) team up to try to hijack it.

Team vs Team stuff. I like it.

How about a bar fight command? Or a bar flirt command? :-)

Vertebrate wrote:Or a bar flirt command? :-)

"Okay, but if there are any girls there, I wanna DO them!"

That aside, bar fights would be cool, but before that it'd be nice to be able to beat someone unconscious instead of to death.

In support of not killing the named NPCs I hereby bump this thread about attacking random crowd NPCs and possibly adding barfights.