theworldofdreams.com

Drocket wrote:

I really do think that there's a good basis for a good vs. evil shard, but you see, that's just not what WoD is about. Even confining 'evil' to a specific town doesn't really work, because good players are inherently going to want to go there to take out the evil.

Ultimately, all I can really say is that any major push in this direction is outside the scope of what WoD is.

That brings to mind an obvious question, and I would like to get everyone's input on it, please: what IS the scope of WoD? And, what should it be?

Thanks.

Well I think the good vs evil issue is something each player has a certain view on, no matter what shard he is on. I've never played chars on rp or non-rp shards that are totally "good." I'm not one to say "Let's go after the bad guy," but with some of the things said on the forum I get the impression that that is what is expected of players here. To me, good vs evil is too black and white. I'm somewhere in the shades of grey, closer to neutral than good or evil.
Making special "evil" places would be too divisive of the shard in my opinion. I don't see how "evil" quests would hurt though, since people have and are proud of negative virtue titles.
Drocket's comment that good players would go "to take out the evil" sort of worries me. I would hope that if there were some "evil" place that a group would not feel so richeous as to go attack it.

WoD is what we, both players and the staff, make of it. A suggestion shouldn't be shot down as not being in the scope of WoD because that should be something that can change if there is enough support for it. The shard grows and changes as people come and go and bring their own ideas in, so the scope of the shard should be dynamic as well.

Personally, I consider the scope of WoD to be a PvP- PvE shard (where PvE stands for Players vs. Evil or Players vs. Enviroment.) Its essentially a team game, where all players are on the same team ('good') and pretty much the rest of the world is the forces of evil (aside from some helpful support NPCs for the players.)

I really don't believe its possible to have a game where the players can be both good and evil without allowing PvP. As I said, I think that there's an interesting basis for a shard there, but that shard would be necessity need to be a PvP+ shard, simply because any time you allow players to be on a different 'team', you need to at least have the possibility/threat of physical conflict (though I think in a good game, there should be additional forms of conflict: economic conflict, for example, but the possibility of physical conflicts still needs to exist, even if its not encouraged.)

Drocket's comment that good players would go "to take out the evil" sort of worries me. I would hope that if there were some "evil" place that a group would not feel so richeous as to go attack it.

Conflict is something that is, I think, necessary in a game. Without some form of conflict, you essentially don't even have a game. Not all conflict is overt: sometimes it can be suble. Even in 'conflict-free' games like Simcity, there's still conflict: its simply in the form of Player vs. Enviroment (usually in the form of traffic problems, in Simcity, it seems....) Even in a game as simple as Solitaire, you still have the conflict between the player and the cards.

When you have 2 groups of players in a game, and go so far as you label one group 'good' and the other 'evil, I don't think you can avoid having conflict between then. The evil players are inherently going to want to take items/power away from the good players, and the good players are inherently going to want to stop them. When you add any level of roleplaying to the table, things automatically become messier (and despite what any of you think, there's a good deal of roleplaying in WoD because the system is build to inherently promote it. You want to bash a dragon and take its loot? Guess what? That was a good action, and you just did exactly what your character would have done (because, again, all players are on the side of good.))

the scope of the shard should be dynamic as well.

I'm not really entirely sure about this. WoD was founded on certain ideas and ideals, and when you stray too far from them, it simply stops being WoD. To me, there's simply something WRONG when an entity outlives its reason for living: its something that I've seen happen far too many times (the Ultima series itself, for example.) The fact is, if and when WoD outgrows its reason for existing, I would actually prefer that the shard retires gracefully rather than become something that its not.

Drocket wrote: I'm not really entirely sure about this. WoD was founded on certain ideas and ideals, and when you stray too far from them, it simply stops being WoD. To me, there's simply something WRONG when an entity outlives its reason for living: its something that I've seen happen far too many times (the Ultima series itself, for example.) The fact is, if and when WoD outgrows its reason for existing, I would actually prefer that the shard retires gracefully rather than become something that its not.

Though you lack the flare of Dundee, I would say all in all he hit the mark on the spot giving you the reigns of power