Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 3.7K All Categories
- 3K The Midnight Age
- 757 Announce posts
- 125 Newbies
- 6 Class Guides
- 804 Harpy's Head Tavern
- 57 Echo Canyon
- 310 Self-Affirmations
- 163 Town Crier
- 135 The Exchange
- 167 Sparring Grounds
- Combat Guides
- 30 Combat Logs
- 188 Idea Box
- 9 Classleads
- 578 Roleplay Logs
- 107 Aetolia Development
- 5 The Void
- 744 Miscellaneous
- 9 Announcements
- 417 OOC Chat
- 217 Tech Talk
- 47 Scripts
Looking for more active discussion? Join our Discord at https://discord.gg/x2s7fY6
Comments
Neither is easier or harder.
Personally, I have had fun on both sides. For different reasons and I found challenges to face on both.
Aetolia is probably the only place where I've approached my character from a psychological perspective and actually did some research to look into the effects of what killing does the psyche or what a traumatic experience can do to an individual from a young age. What I found interesting is how individuals with psychosis or a form of traumatic disorders can honestly go on living normal lives but can become emotionally detached or utter sociopaths. Curiously, depending on the cause that such a character committed themselves to, they could EASILY be viewed as a hero if you're one of their allies.
Regarding psychology, all of our characters should be relatively unhinged. Nearly all of us are killers in some shape or form, even if we don't PK. Your character, when bashing, is sometimes killing sentient individuals. Individuals who, while their backstory isn't much covered, have had childhoods, memories, lovers, enemies, friendships, and more... your character is ending all of that, often instantly with an overkill from a critical hit. So yeah, you're all a bunch of dirty, dirty murderers and killers. Though, depending on what we killed? It'd be easy for Enorian to perceive Tenshyo, as an example, bashing out a town of undead as heroic or setting Spinesreach ablaze. However, when you really think about the ramifications of such actions, it's easy to see Tenshyo as a villain.
So yeah, with a relatively grimdark setting like Aetolia, we're all villains to someone else. Who knows though, you might just be a hero to someone else for the horrible things you've done. I know Seir is to some people.
I agree. Shades of white, grey, black, and every color in between exist in Aetolia. Just because your chosen character might be a 'darkie' by general association, doesn't mean you'll align yourself with any other darkie that comes along. That's just not the case.
Pretty much everyone in Aetolia is a murderer if you take bashing into account, and while that is interesting to note, there are still drawn lines and intent behind a character. I would say murdering anything sentient is generally unsavory, but few in Aetolia will bat an eye if a lighter takes out a town of undead. In Aetolia, there is an aspect of murdering on a mass scale that is viewed as a social norm.
This is less about the philosophy behind good or evil, hero or villain, monster or citizen, and is more about what you, the player, experience when playing a character. Where they fall in the spectrum of good and evil is ultimately up to you, and I think you as a player can discern, based on your experience, where you might say your character falls on average.
If you want to dig into your character portrayal in depth and get into the philosophy of why a lighter can be considered a 'good guy' but be despicable to his team mates, simply because of how ruthless he is when upholding your ideals, that's cool, and I'm interested in that. I'm just as interested in the insight of what made playing a given role fun when it can be offered in two to three sentences.
All that said, it's cool to see that you have dug really deep in your portrayal of Seir, and I appreciate that you brought up the point, as it might inspire others to do so in relation to their characters.
In any event, when I played as Seir (and do so every so often), it's hard to say if I experience anything. I've done some personality tests with questions and the way that I believe he'd answer as well as determining his general temperament (which would be solidly melancholic). What made Seir fun though was that he was different from any other character that I created across IRE. He isn't attractive, he looks like a monster, and he's done some truly terrible things to others (including those close to him). Yet, despite all of this, there are some within Duiran and Enorian that have viewed him as a hero and even more amusingly: a knightly figure. It's that dichotomy in perception that made him fun to roleplay. He's either really reviled or he's really beloved on both sides of the Aetolia faction spectrum.
But this topic, as @Aishia said, becomes really hard when I try to narrow down what exactly motivates Seir. I think those who've gotten close to him knows that he wants to create a world where monsters like him aren't necessary. In reality, he could be that on any side. However, his experiences on Spirit leave him to believe that a return to the natural order of life and death would ultimately achieve this. He could easily motivate himself to murder, maim, and take on the evils of the world into himself if it meant that the next generation wouldn't have to stain their hands in blood. He gained this perspective upon becoming a father, despite not even being a good father by any means. I actually had a conversation with @Emelle awhile back where if the game had permanent death if you chose to "retire" your character that way, how do you think they would turn out? After thinking on it awhile, I came to the conclusion that if I could choose for him to die, he'd be a martyr but one where he'd ultimately fade into history and likely be forgotten.
Ah man, Akary made a great topic for discussion. I'm actually really interested in what really motivates other characters as well and how their personalities can sharply contrast with their aspirations and motivations.
For the most part, I am the most comfortable playing a forestal because I feel it has the most flexibility on the Spirit side of the game. Here and there, I've tried to make alts on shadow (they never make it) and on the light side (they lasted a little longer) but I always come back to Duiran. The shades of gray in Duiran can range from very light to a very dark gray, to me it represents the fluid nourish/destructive nature of duality that Dendara and the org is supposed to embody.
Pilar is a good guy on paper but she's also a total Haern/Dendara fanatic, not above cannibalism (a common Grecht survival tactic in my headcannon), won't bat an eye at sacrificing the few for many, many for an important few, or even a grander purpose. She can see that the Light is better than Shadow but to her Dendara is above either. If more things develop with Dendara, Pilar will always take Dendara's side, especially if it hurts the Shadow side and even if it hurts the Light. At the moment, it is better for Spirit allies to stick together but I find it more interesting to play the forestal side of that tenuous relationship of wilderness vs civilization.
Plus, less clothes. Woo.
I've always been interested in the roles that women take and make when they receive power and/or knowledge in ancient societies. Everything from priestesses, empresses, queens, cunning women, and concubines. They weren't physically powerful but they used their wits, bodies, faith, manipulation, allies, whatever it took even if it was hard or degraded them to get their goals met.
The roles of priestesses, shamans, and healers especially when it relates to the roles of women in animism, have always really interested me. So of course this has influenced Pilar a lot and I've found that much like those women, she's either hated or very much liked. Maybe one day I'll get political with Pilar again but right now concentrating on her spiritual development has been fun, challenging, and rewarding. It's given me a fresh look on her story of growing as close to Haern, Dendara, and the Rhythm as possible.
I told him, "Water me."
Affirm Pilar!
The kind of role you construct for yourself to play can have an impact on what kind of decisions are made, assuming you stay true to the role. I agree, just the selection of which side of 'good' or 'bad' is not going to present an 'easy' or 'hard' experience in its own right.
However, I would argue that one side of the fence or the other might have greater challenges to face, based on how restrictive respective organizations can be.
Though, that's tangential to the main point here, which is sharing and maybe elaborating on your experiences, not taking sides as to which is better/worse/hard/easy.
I've played a character that was 'evil/dark/chaotic' - whatever adjective in that vein you can attach. Personally, I wasn't very good at being evil, in the beginning, it felt unnatural until I got the right fit - which is what Kaetriela presented me with. She wasn't difficult to play, at all, because of the mindset that was there - It's not the end of the world if I fail.
But, having played Nola as a very, very staunch zealot in the role of a 'hero', I suppose. I'm not sure I'd classify Nola -as- a hero, but, she fought for all the right things. She had all the right intentions. Did that make it easy? Nola has been the hardest character I've ever played, but in that challenge, she has also been the most enjoyable, and richly layered/developed character because all of those challenges gave an opportunity for growth.
It's not easy being the hero. Why? Because like many people have stated, the slightest infraction of what is expected of you calls for grave consequence/reactions from your very friends/allies. Not your enemies. Why would your enemies care? All the better, to them. Or so it should be.
You can do your very best, but if you somehow do it wrong, even if you're been doing it the same way for years, then it will -become- your undoing.
That's what I've experienced, in any case. This is probably less true for someone who is playing simply a 'good' character, rather than a hard-line 'zealot' character. I think it really, then, depends on how you structure your character's motivations, intent, and overall perception. If I were to roll a lighter right now that wasn't a zealot like Nola is, I'd probably feel it as a much more casual, free-form experience.
I may not have expressed this as clearly as I'd like to. I hope everyone gets the gist of what I mean, because I know I'm not the only one who has gone through this.
The Hero's biggest enemy isn't those shadow folks across the border, it's the internal struggle that becomes the most trial-some and the most exhausting.
I find it all fascinating. Studying people and their reactions to events are some of my favorite past times. Sure, it can be frustrating and exhausting but the struggle in my opinion was the most rewarding overall.
Oh, yes, I am going to play the villain. And I'm going to love it.
That isn't #heroproblems, it's #humanproblems.
Thanks for posting in the thread, it needed a small bump. The goal in this particular thread isn't so much about proclaiming your villainship as it is about examining how the role is engaging and reflecting on it, or the challenges it has presented you as a player.
Based on what I've seen in game, with raids and particularly the latest news posts, Lait has become something of an overzealous crusader, ignoring shades of dark/evil/monster to classify everything as the enemy of her cause. Mass extermination of any and all perceived corruption will certainly be a big task.
You mentioned recent events that led to taking up the role, could you elaborate, maybe touch upon the challenges along the way?
Every time I thought about that, I realized that my ebb/flow interest in PK wasn't going to sustain me if I cut out the other role attachments that kept me bound and on track - city work, etc. Lait's a lot more into the peekay, so maybe it'll work for her.
From reflecting on my portrayal of Akaryuterra, I think I was PROBABLY influenced by the following:
Aaron from the movie Primal Fear, but that was mostly in his early years, and without much planning. It sort of happened organically while playing the character, it wasn't done with the intent to imitate. I know I saw the movie before I played Akary and Ryo, so this is more of hunch on where I drew from.
I play Akary as a very intellectual character, with an inclination to experiment and research the things that interest him. While some of the inspiration for playing him came from some previous characters I have role played with (Prism), I would also say I draw inspiration for the behavior and portrayal from Data from Star Trek. His present behavior has come about from playing him for a long time and letting him develop. Elements of previous inspiration are still present, but I don't think I draw as much from those sources now.
Much moreso in recent years, his moral grey areas draw from Eleanor, and portraying a Cabalist as the role had become defined over the years with the two of us leading the guild.
Ryotega, meanwhile, probably drew from the following:
Roy, from Primal fear, again without the intent to consciously imitate. I've told the story before, but the summary is that in one of the first RP interactions I had on the character involved throwing out a couple random premotes. I immediately began thinking on how to explain that, and the split personality RP began, without much in the way of preconceived behavior ideas or anything like that. Pretty lucky that it worked and it stuck, all things considered.
Being different would be another inspiration, I guess. I challenged myself to roleplay more by having two characters, which bred the need for conflict between them. Ryotega and Akary were at odds with each other, and Ryotega was very entitled. If there was something Akary had, it was owed to him, in part, since Akary inhabited HIS body. Some of that selfishness is still present, but it was much more dramatic early on, when Akary met Eleanor, and Ryotega took it upon himself to then seduce her.
In the early years, Ryotega was much more rebellious when faced with authority, and so there were several instances in which he spoke to the earliest guild master with enough verbal color that I was expecting to get boosted from the guild. That behavior stemmed from a distrust of just about everyone around him, as he knew he was abrasive, and suspected pretty much anyone would rather have Akary present than him (and that was at a time when they fought for control of the body).
Over time, this has resulted in trying to hold two different opinions while playing the character, and even built to a minor slugfest between the two.
With that bit of character portrayal rambling out of the way, moving on to more of what the topic is about, a couple difficult or engaging RP situations I've encountered:
1)
The result of these elements of the character is fun to portray, because In a guild like the Cabalists, Ryotega has often been the odd man out when it comes to grey areas and shady practices. Especially early on, he was completely against torture, didn't really believe the ends justified the means, and didn't really tolerate abuse - with the exception of abuse he dealt, as he rarely felt was significant enough to actually be called abuse.
As they have grown, Akary has adopted a blase view of death, because of how infrequently death is actually final (typically NPCs are the only sufferers of final death), but would still refuse to visit torture on a subject. At this point, threatening him with such would probably bore him more than anything else. Ryotega's opinion of its impact has shifted as well, probably partly due to Akary, but should a situation arise where death couldn't be used to coerce a subject, torture is something he might consider the next viable escalation of force.
Roleplaying the shift in Ryotega from one view (rejection of torture) to the flip-side (a viable escalation of force) was actually triggered by guild members, and Eleanor, so it proved to be one of the more challenging instances of RP. Of the two, playing Ryotega tends to be more challenging, as he will not always act in his own self interest, nor in a way that is congruent with his 'allies' interests.
Coming to terms with the 'ends justify the means' stance involved a lot of behind the scenes conflict with Eleanor, which sometimes came to light outside of the home.
2)
Playing Akaryuterra has given me the pleasure of roleplaying with characters on both sides of the lightie/darkie fence, and I think it comes primarily from his unassuming and polite nature, which builds a rapport much better than Ryo's more abrasive and dismissive language. Skirting the line has its benefits, and I think his scholarly nature has led to a greater breadth of philosophical discussions than I would have otherwise had.
These have included talks with @Nola, @Katriela, @Shachalai, @hadoryu, @lait (at an earlier point in time, concerning the nature of Idreth), and several others that I am sure I'm presently forgetting. The more well thought out the argument that Akary runs up against, the more interesting it tends to be to RP, for me.
3)
Partly due to his more conservative nature, Akary has found a great deal of appeal in the Duiranite lifestyle, especially in the time when the culture was more focused around the idea of the savage wilds. When gruesome masks and brute force were a means of establishing place and order (speaking from the point of view of an outsider who never experienced said culture). The more shamanistic feel that it had, in combination with the few Duiranites he knew, made it very attractive to jump into the heavily experiential elements of hedonism he saw in @Lin.
I think it was in holding with the character of Akaryuterra to not hop sides and engage in that RP, despite that, as a player, I really wanted to explore it. Maybe it was a lost opportunity to really dig into a more emotional and even spiritual aspect of Akary, but it's hard to say after the fact. Of course, looking back, I think he also would have been an outsider, regardless of joining or not, because he is too firmly rooted in the logical and scientific mindset. A lot of the RP would have felt like looking in as an observer, tolerated because of a maintained distance from the true heart of it.
When it comes to playing a Villain, I have been in that situation, I have become the villain for doing what I felt was best, for the character and those around it, I have also been lauded as a Good person or a hero for being quick to respond and assess a situation, I dont like weighing my particular style of roleplay as one trope in comparison to another because for me that makes it too difficult to uphold a sense of standard logging in always to the same routine and feeling, so having my character being able to be swayed by surroundings, questionable morals, distrust and perhaps a bit of fear, it has allowed be to develop close bonds with smaller amounts of people who I trust, but a general side-eye from perhaps the more devout or evil.
I also take into consideration with my character roles a sense of honesty, because even if you have done horrible things here and there, sometimes your blatant honesty about them are dismissed as a quirk of the character, but if cornered or ever approached qith a question I have always tried to give a truthful answer, just in the sense that lying in a characters role for me is difficult because you have to remember all those lies. So being truthful so much so that it hurts is a way to really throw people off putting a finger on you as a person unless they are particularly close to your character and know that this trait is factual.
I am super medicated and kinda ranting right now, but I think that overall sometimes being a good person who does villainous things, or being a villain who does good things can have its merits, and its a role that can be fickle to balance but brings about alot of interesting roleplay. At least fo r me.
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's character in Doom. I know it's not a great work of art, but I really enjoy this film. This corporate spec ops team is made up of morally right, grey, and wrong characters and I think that it portrays them very well despite the B horror movie setting. When deciding to join the Syssin I modeled Jensen after the Rock's character and that's what made him become a guild sec and warden of the Ironmaw.
Samuel L Jackson in "Unthinkable" is the other half to Jensen's character (Though I've pulled many nuances from other books and films). It was the cold, yet calculated, brutality. The mixture of pain and mind games. Learning an opponent's fears and weaknesses, and then using them to get what your side wants. This turned Jensen from the cannibal to the butcher.
The internal part of my character is harder to show, since I don't use thought like @haven does (Though after reading his logs I regret it) The movie "Revolver" directed by Guy Ritchie, has been a big inspiration to how Jensen's mind works. There are differences however, such as not caring about money and always wanting to be lieutenant to a general and not necessarily in charge.
Jensen doesn't allow cowards among his ranks, and I'm not ashamed to say some of this was taken from the movie 300 (Gunslingers in the Dark Tower also inspired a good bit of it too)
Last minute edit.
While I haven't pulled any specific part from these movies, I can say that Keyser Soze from "The Usual Suspects," and the devil from "Devil's Advocate" influenced my character quite a bit.
It was nigh on impossible to be the bad guy because the good guys had all the best PK fighters at the time.
I remember summoning Dhaivol and the reason for the finishing had to be contrived a little because there was nothing we could do about the firepower and I've always felt that if you can't back yourself up in a fight you lose a little something.
I think I made a compelling Moot villain though and his inability to articulate himself well led to that.
Also coined the phrase flower knights for Infernals sleeping with Druids.
So. Playing as Axius for the last 2-ish months, I've often had his character building in my mind, you could probably guess. Well, lately I've been in a bit of an emotional funk, and it means I'm probably at my most creative due to escapist tendencies. So while I was driving earlier, my phone's playlist started a certain song while my mind drifted through its usual list before something "clicked" with this certain song. It made me realize that I want to reshape Axius, but being one to pretty much doubt and second guess myself constantly, I asked myself why I wanted to do this.
All I could think about was this thread, and what I wanted to write here, amusingly enough.
As someone who grew up in a household where WoW was not only regularly played by an uncle who was practically a brother due to the smaller age-gap and how we grew up, I played a lot of WoW during my formative years. This is a detail I'm going to note is important for one simple reason: The Alliance and the Horde.
I grew up with both of these in front of me during my formative years, and it actually lead me to realize rather early on that there's no real such thing as "Good" and "Evil", Since inherently, these constructs are actually imposed by the human mind as a replacement for "Ally" and "Antagonist" respectively. Everyone is the Hero in their own eyes*, so it's hard to boil anything truly down to something as objectively distinct as good and evil, because a lot of the time, good lore-crafters and writers will actually write not one, but two opposing heroes into their stories. It still isn't terribly common with novels that I've read as of late, but there are a few exceptions out there.
Aetolia is a game I really enjoy because of one simple detail: It manages to meet the same quality that actually made me fall in love with the way WoW had its two opposing factions set up. Just because Shadow is labelled such, doesn't mean that Shadow is inherently "Evil", or Spirit is inherently "Good". It's not objective in this game, and you only need to step back from the game itself and look at the sides themselves. I bet you'll have a hard time finding someone able to tell you exactly why Shadow is "Evil" that doesn't involve use of methods that they find questionable. And I bet that a lot of Shadow side could make an argument that Spirit is just as evil for their own questionable methods.
We villify those that we oppose, and it makes it difficult to draw objective lines in the sand without subjectivity getting in the way. Aetolia is set up in such a way that..well.. I realized it reminds me a lot about WoW, but we are actually a lot better for it.
*Note: There are exceptions to this general rule of thumb, I'm aware. I'm one of those people who has the emotional and mental state of acknowledging himself as the Antagonist of his own story, and it probably says a lot about me.
Additional note: I'm aware this is rambling, makes little sense, and otherwise just BARELY, if at all, has anything to do with this actual subject, but I hope you guys might try to understand what I'm meaning, in spite of my.. poor emotional health right now.
1) If you have played both a villain and a hero (in the sense of playing 'good' and 'bad' aligned characters) which did you enjoy more, and why? If it is hard to tell which was more enjoyable to play, maybe list a couple pros and cons to each role?
Using DnD alignments as a point of reference, I have predominantly played Lawful characters. Lawful Good, Lawful Evil, and Lawful Neutral. Of the three, I enjoyed the neutral character the best, and it's taken me a fair bit of reflection to consider why that is.
Whether you're a good guy or a bad guy, in general I feel that Lawful characters are the most positive and sustainable roles to choose in a MUD setting. This is purely because the game is multiplayer. When playing any role and deciding how my character would respond to a given scenario, one of the main thoughts weighing into my decision is "Will this be fun for the other player/s involved?" That question really is a driving motivation in most all of what I do, and when you're playing a neutral character, you generally will have a far wider range of options for how to make something fun without breaking character.
I guess what I mean is, Good and Evil characters have more rules (and this sounds very obvious to me now, but I'll elaborate further anyways). Their personal beliefs and motivations limit their responses to any given situation.
All this said, I do believe that non-Lawful aligned characters are important too, but I have always felt that they should be played in short bursts to add flavor and interest as opposed to a long, sustained, and consistent campaign of daily play. Especially Chaotic characters. Their actions are (in general) going to be more unpredictable and impactful, and therefore evoke stronger reactions from their fellow players.
tl;dr: Lawful makes it easier for me to be respectful of my fellow MUDders. Lawful Neutral is the most fun and freeing for me.
2) What kind of villain or hero do you like most? Scheming or principled, physically strong or mentally overpowering, direct or subtle, morally rigid or flexible within a set of limits? Got any examples from movies, comics, or first hand RP?
For Evil, I enjoy physically unintimidating but mentally imposing characters. They're cold, calculating, scheming, and ruthless. They're primarily self-interested, very patient and subtle, and will spend years carefully shaping their personal situation and bending the people around them into whatever shape they want. Very fun.
For Good, I'm most attracted to strong, direct, morally rigid, but incredibly flawed characters. My favorite was a self-loathing alcoholic insomniac who believed they were placed on this planet exclusively to sacrifice themselves so that other, more worthy people could enjoy a more peaceful and prosperous existence.
For Neutral, I always play a character who has their own deeply-ingrained code of conduct, which is independent of any organization they may belong to. They will never bend their own beliefs for anyone, ever, and are prepared to die defending their way of living.
3) With the 2nd question in mind, which provides you the greatest challenge as a player when portraying a character? Any particular reason?
I struggled the most with being Evil, lol. It's hard to be someone who's always so damn selfish and doesn't want things for other people unless it serves their own agenda. I'll often throw in an extra shade of grey to the whole 'Evil' thing though, and make that agenda something that benefits everyone around them.
Er, I didn't mean to write that much. Nice thread, very thought-provoking!