try playing a darker dreamer...

[penacus]

"As there is a use in medicine for poisons, so the world cannot move without rogues" -RWE

Aside from a weekly battle or two do you all realize that this "war" is basically against one person ? And it's not Zaxun.. The weekenders pop in and out but there's one dreamer who's on everyones hit list. It just seems absurd to me, if you're bored enough try making an avatar who walks on the darker side, it might spark some life into the game. I understand it's an RP but you have one person without whom there is zero steady in-game presence for zaxun's army. No disrespect to the others in her group, but they're not the ones on peoples lips.

Sure it's nice to be on the winning side but it speaks ill of the community when everyone chooses the "safe" route. Stop playing on easy mode. Maybe it's just me...

If you read this, sidious we can use about 20 of you.

[Sidas]

I find that to be a bit insulting. Purely good and purely bad characters are generally 2 dimensional and weak. Just because people pile up against someone that is very clearly "bad" does not mean people aren't playing "darker" characters. It just means that even those characters can recognize what is being represented.

Yes, Purple Lace is the primary Sanctuary antagonist in this RP but that was her choice, IC and OOC. I'm not going to change my character, that has been on the same path and direction since day one of CoD, just because the "bad guys" need help. And fighting against the stronger threat is not necessarily the "safe" route, either, since those are the ones most likely to lose their characters in the long run.

[Voxaroth]

Quite honestly, "bad guys" and "good guys" lack complexity, and are generally tediously boring. It's also really cliche to have bad guys be dark and brooding, and good guys to be paladin-type crusaders.

And if the darker side of a conflict wants more allies, the burden of recruiting lies with them. If the reasons being provided aren't enough to pull more than just a couple of characters to the cause, then it's time to get some stronger reasons. In the current roleplay with Zaxun, it's obviously going to take more than the reasoning put forward so far (or at very least some confirmation that there MIGHT be some truth to it).

It's not that there aren't darker characters; we're in plain sight. But we aren't going to sacrifice our consistency for a blatantly lacking tale with no proof. And you shouldn't want us too.

[Arnaya]

Other problem with "bad guys" and "goodguys" is that they get kinda boring to play. I've played both in pen and paper, and forum games before...once people know what type of character your playing... they kinda get tired of it too. I tried to make Arnaya a person. Strengths, flaws, you name it. She's big on community, and is prepared to sacrifice a LOT in the name of that. So far, she just had really had the opportunity to do much (though trying to torture and poison Zaxun's soulsphere last night wasn't exactly a "good girl" thing to do lol.

Simple fact with Zaxun... he's an out right villian that no one but the MOST fanatic Illuminate characters would reasonably back unless the character is extremely short sighted and a bit dense, or is playing an angle to use him for their own ends (and prepared to pay a really high cost for it) *shrugs*

[Cherokee]

What is right and wrong is a matter of the characters' perception. I know a few characters (my own included) that probably would have been down to joining the Vanguard, but it is all about presentation - that Zaxun clearly lacked when he made his grand entrance. Destroying the Anvil upon arrival and making "join or die" threats with the Mace takes away from a character's free will, and many are too proud to bow down and take orders...especially from a stranger.

Some might, as some of them did. However, you can't expect a community to watch a loved dreamer get DreamStruck and not want to retaliate against the man responsible, including the followers that aided him in battle.

Now, who's to say there aren't darker characters because they're not joining Zaxun's crusade? People opposing could quite possibly be fighting him for the sake of obtaining the Mace for themselves.

[Arnaya]

Or just because he's a threat to plans that they have for the city, or otherwise gets in the way of their own plans. A selfish person that doesn't really care if they have to hurt someone to achieve their goals (IE: A dark character), is completely different from a malicious.. evil.. SoB that's is out to actively butcher/subjugate everyone.

I think that's the key to playing a good "bad guy" PC... they have to have something that makes them one of the players. Lines they won't cross in regards to their home for whatever reason. Cuero comes to mind as a good "bad guy" type. He is NOT a good man, or a nice one. He is a still a dreamer of the city though, and acts like it. He has friends, allies, rivals, and enemies. Another good one is Bladeslayer. He's not what most people think of as a villian, but he's definitely an antagonist while being part of the game community. Dreiko can be considered on the same level, same with Flower of Cienn and Tember... just to name a couple examples in game right now.

To use D&D terms.... the big bads are the GM's level of things. These are the massively overwhelming Chaotic Evil types. I havn't met a single pen and paper GM that will let players take on Chaotic Evil roles. Chaotic Neutral, or Lawful evil. MAYBE if someone's really good and isn't going to completely mess up a campaign... let them run a Neutral Evil. But save the Real villains, the true monsters, for the GM's. They have the resources and ability to make the character actually work. Everyone else trying to play that type of "Evil" character... is basically just a punching bag for the other players/characters, especially in an MMO. They exist only to be antagonists, so... they end up antagonizing everyone, and everyone lashes out at them.

[Uthanatos]

I'd like to add a little something to what's come above. This isn't like a house war where it is constant and members are everywhere trying to beat each other down with sheer force. Zaxun is a tool, he gives a focus for people to work on as a tool for roleplaying, whether his followers or his opposition. The battles are great fun, but they aren't really the focus, GMs bring in big bads and darkmares to keep fights from getting stale, not because flinging a chak is going to yield ultimate victory against them.

[Noidea]

I think the point really - and the point of what "Penacus" was saying - is not so much that people should play full-on "villains" as that people should play full-on enemies. Enemies to somebody or other, at least. To an extent, there's no such thing as "dark/light", there's only "our side/the other side".

In fact, being "dark" purely in flavour text, "not a good man, or a nice one", without being anyone's outright enemy, is rather frustrating. (No disrespect to Cuero or his controller by quoting that, I don't interact with him much so I don't know how it works out with him - just seems a good summary of those characters.) I've often been puzzled to know how to interact with characters who wear bloodstained, spiked armour or vaguely demonic symbols, talk offhandedly about being assassins, but are nonetheless apparently "on our side" and one of the guys and not actually an enemy or giving any reason to be. I'd have thought that what gets Purple Lace surrounded by such a whirl of exciting stuff is not that she's an unpleasant spiteful character, though she can act like that with great gusto when she wants to, but that she's literally at open war with the rest of the City. You can't ignore that. The two things may or may not go together, in any one case. As Voxaroth said -

It's also really cliche to have bad guys be dark and brooding, and good guys to be paladin-type crusaders.

"One may smile, and smile, and be a villain."

[Sidas]

I think the point really - and the point of what "Penacus" was saying - is not so much that people should play full-on "villains" as that people should play full-on enemies. Enemies to somebody or other, at least. To an extent, there's no such thing as "dark/light", there's only "our side/the other side".

The problem there is the need for a balance. When Clash of Dreams began, OSM were full on enemies with DoL and HC. It made sense, OSM was designed to be the antagonists. However, it went on for far too long, which led to a decline in players on all sides.

However, you can be enemies without being outright at all times. Don't mistake feigned smiles and friendliness with everyone being friends.

[Noidea]

I know, but it's very dull. It just makes the game feel more stressful, without there ever being anything you can act on, except in the negative sense of having a wodge of teachers who you can't take tasks from without offending your House. My view's probably distorted by my hours, as usual - I only see the standing around and talking in Sanc, I never see the denouement.

[Lu Chaos]

Uh, Lu Chaos isn't considered a 'dark' character in my eyes. Just because someone sides with the enemy doesn't mean they are good or evil, just means they have made a decision to help the enemy for some reason that only they know.

[Tary]

Playing an evil character well is really difficult, particularly because in the west we have romanticized versions of 'good' and 'evil.' We typically construct good characters to be squeaky clean, friendly and almost dumb. Evil is typically baby-killing, sneaky and mean. But the reality is never that clear cut. Evil and good are just words assigned by people after the fact. Most things are not that clear cut, and even when they are, time can white-wash even the most dreadful of people if they were victorious.

The best evil characters are motivated by doing what they think is right. Ghazgkull was a great example of an evil character. I'd say that BladeSlayer is a pretty fantastic example of 'evil' now. You wouldn't call either character evil by any typical definition, but they are/were both convinced of their rightness to the exclusion of all else and can not be convinced otherwise. By that measure, 'evil' ought to be defined as the "magnification," if you will, of a core set of beliefs and the inability to consider anything else.

Yes, sociopathy exists, but it's atypical by its very nature (if it weren't, it wouldn't be sociopathy). Evil, on the other hand, is all around us: it is in our politicians who refuse to hear anything contradictory to what they believe, our leaders and even ourselves.

So, then, a person who is evil is a person who refuses to change his/her belief even when confronted with opposing evidence. Evil is the refusal to even consider one's wrongness, or the inability to do so, and the dogged pursuit of one's agenda even if it means disregarding the well-being of others, often "for the greater good."

For what it's worth I try to play Tary this way, although I add a touch of smarminess as well because I'm usually three drinks in when I start playing Underlight and being smarmy makes me laugh while I'm on my third Jack and Coke.

[Uthanatos]

Evil really is subjective, to Blade, drainers are evil, they are murdering the unawakened. To Uthy, Lace is evil, because he sees her as betraying her city. It's all subjective based on your core beliefs and morals. Each of us is an enabler to some and a foil to others, which is the way the real world works. Regardless of your motivations, it's how others view you that makes you good or evil. I'm sure there are some who think that without struggle the city will fall, which makes Uthy evil to them. All subjective. You don't have to be dark and brooding, or psychopathic to be evil.....don't worry, in someone's eyes, you are.

[Noidea]

Exactly, I suppose if you think it would be exciting to be an enemy, the important thing isn't to be sinister, it's to tread on toes. If you're doing something that's diametrically against what other people are after, and don't attempt to apologise or get their agreement either, then to those people you're evil - or at least, what is the main point, an enemy. And that same uncompromised, unilateral ideal might make you a hero to the other side.

What Lu Chaos's controller just said is a perfect example - Lu is not intended to be a villain, a "bad guy" irrespective of who he's talking to, though being a wild tattooed wolf warrior makes him alarming enough to fit that role well if he does happen to be not on your side. But he's frequently an enemy of large numbers of dreamers (who thereby THINK of him as a villain) because he's always getting some huge Cause into his head and then pursuing it regardless of everyone who disagrees. Looked at from a neutral point of view, he's rather heroic, although possibly crazy.

Uthanatos, I never thought of that idea - that belief that the City would fade away without struggle and fighting HAS appeared before now, so potentially, even someone who looks at all sides and always tries to work out an agreement (like Uthy, and Blue) would be doing something that makes them an enemy, relative to that!