Refer to Japhiniel XVI

...I'll get right on that.

Infact,

I'd just like to say that's crap. "Good" and "evil" is subjective, first of all. Almost nobody wants to be "evil," by their own definition of it. "Evil" is a fairly universal term for "bad." So, people are going to aim for what their ideals of "good" are.

Now, the conflict comes into play when Party A and Party B disagree on what "good" is. Let's look at the Old Testament, for a moment. It was alright to sell your daughters into slavery (Leviticus, I forget the exact section, but I could look it up if anyone is really that fussy on it), but you couldn't boff a chick on her period.

Now, by today's standards, the first is just Bad, m'kay? The second? Well, that's just kinda gross. Not evil, just gross.

But I could've been stoned to death 500 years ago, for saying such things. Hell, I still could, in some parts of the world.

Do these so called "evil" people love their children any less? Their wives? No. They just hold a different moral standard. It's an accepted practice. Perhaps they aren't so -public- with their displays of affection, but that's not to say they aren't in private, or that because they aren't so outgoing about it, that they're any less caring.

Furthermore, even assuming that they -didn't- have any real affection for others, as we might understand it, there's still a logical point to consider - if you have children, you are immortalized, in a way. You can shape their future, their beleifs to that which you wish, and they can carry on where you leave off.

If you don't beleive me, just look at current world events. You know what I'm talking about. Both sides are screaming about how the other is evil and bad, blah, blah, blah. Both sides have their loyalties, their loved ones...they both beleive they're doing "good."

I think I've about made my point. The only place "good" and "evil" are set in stone, is Dungeons & Dragons.

Incidentally, with regards to Estarra's post - as interesting a character as that would be, I wouldn't recommend it unless you are REALLY good at roleplaying. I've seen several people attempt these sorts of roles before, but the role seems in my experience to attract mainly people who THINK they're influential and popular and so forth, but in fact...aren't. And it is one of the most ANNOYING things to witness in action, for some reason, the desire to strangle them is overwhelming.

That said, if someone's REALLY up to that it'd be very interesting.

First up, Mhaldor was utterly pathetic. Long live the Infernals. My precious Infernals. Oh, Ashtan will pay. Somehow. >_<. Second, Magnagorans aren't greedy, mostly. Just people like me that infest it like maggots on a corpse.

Edit: Ignore the Shiroish nature of the post. sleepy.

You're too hard on yourself, Yrael.

I thought Mhaldor had some decent rp. If you know anything about Achaea *shiver* Mhaldor was the only city to offer some kind of productive RP. From their sermons at NoT on the seven truths, their Sartanic rituals and their leadership (Khoraji) I believe that they played the role well enough. Unlike Magnagora, they don't have the numbers and would be run over easily, even though they had the most fighters out of all of the Achaean cities combined.

I read Estarra's post and I agree to some extent. You can be 'evil' while remaining friendly, but how friendly are you when you'd chop your best friend's head off for upsetting you? I knew this guy in Achaea, Ranzou. Nicest guy ever, but vicious as all hell. It was interesting to see.

nah, he just swore at me and had outburts at me over the Midnight Legion channel a bit, but he's not completely evil, just weird.

I don't try to be evil.

Bau is just temperamental.