It seems odd because most people tended to complain too many people played the simple "good vs. evil" aspects, when in actuality I believe the intent of the game was to have a lot of shades of grey. Celest is closest to good, but it also engages in some of the bad elements of Zealotry that middle-aged Abrahamic religions engaged in (Crusades, Inquisition, Jihads, etc.). Serenwilde has a darker side, think of the original "Wicker Man" for a possible perspective on this, as well as nature is not just about hippies and new age methods, it's also about druids and witches and elder Elves who hold contempt for civilization and other elements. Magnagora is the most towards classic evil, but there are elements of it being more tragic than mustache-twirling classic evil, more like the seedy Dickens-style view of Victorian empires. Glomdoring is a mix of the darker elements of the communes combined with elements of corruption from the histories, and the admin has worked hard to make it a little less "black and white".

Another very important thing to remember is that the same player base will not stay around forever, and in fact it will change JUST LIKE REAL HISTORY. How many real empires rose and fell in such a timeframe. I think in game terms the older players are close to 200+ years old. This is a prime example of how things change. The French and English used to be at war, then they became allies. Look at a history book and see all the changes in perspectives that have come about. The Lusternia MUD could be a reflection of that.

You're already doing part of it with constant sales, I was merely suggesting that the costs go down business-wide. I, like a few others, think the necessary skills here number more than elsewhere, but all across IRE it is still more expensive than people want to pay in a lot of cases. Especially considering the outbreak of free-to-play and pay-for-perks graphical mmos that are surfacing.

I don't have your access to internal data nor the same IRE wide, but I'd wager there's a downward trend at the very least in overall players and overall spending within the last two years. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll be the "usual suspects" are the ones who buy big into IRE's next forays, just like they're the ones who bought big in the ones before it.

Heh, I can't go into details of course, but you'd lose the wager.

When people ask me how to play a character on the dark side, my advice has always been that your character should always believe they are on the good side. I've played "dark" characters before and have (enjoyably) baffled people who want to pigeon hole my characters as "evil" and the opposing side as "good". I don't care if you're a blood-drinking, virgin-sacrificing destroyer of worlds, you can still believe you are a good and decent soul who only wants what is in the best interests for society.

Just cause you believe it doesn't make it true! *go Celest*

1. You are always right.
2. The other side is always wrong.
3. If any doubts are raised, go back to 1.

I like you

It helps when you are, in fact, always right.

This makes for a good general guideline, but when every single side adheres to this absolutely, things get boring and repetitive fast. There needs to be room for self-doubt, reflection, and adjustment.

I know exactly what you mean. That's why I suggest the more open minded version:

1. Everybody is always correct.
2. I am included in "Everybody".

My point wasn't to roleplay that you're always right, but rather that you're always good.

Viravain, stop polluting my points!

I think what Estarra is trying to say is this; truly evil people don't see themselves as evil. For instance (this is a weak point, but it will be easy to get across), let's say a woman has a small child, and the mother steals a loaf of bread to feed her child. What she does may be "evil", or "against the law" but she doesn't see it that way. She sees herself as good for trying to take care of her child, she believes she is doing the "right thing".

Been reading Les Miserables much lately? I don't think there's a huge dispute that stealing bread to feed a child is evil. Lets take my extreme example:



Of course, I drink the blood of my enemies, to honour them and be one with them. It is a sacred ritual between the prey and the hunted.

Don't you know that the virgins who are sacrificed ascend to the holiest of heavens? For generations, we have venerated those pure and sacred vessels who willing sacrifice themselves for the good of the many. Of course, if there aren't any willing virgins,we must make do with the unwilling, but even if they are unwilling, soon enough they shall know the great honour and gift that I give them when they reach those heavenly shores.

Alas, many worlds have devolved to the point where they are nothing vampiric vortexes of immorality and corruption. The universe suffers as energy which can be used for the chosen worlds is diverted by the cursed worlds. Thus, we must seek out and destroy those worlds that make the rest of us suffer, so new worlds can be born free from the sin.

Etc.

The term "evil" is inherently ambiguous. It has been ruled by popular definition and varied across every culture the world has ever known. "Evil" is simply what you personally, or culturally, have determined to be counterproductive to your goals. One such goal may be to stay alive, and therefor attempting to murder you is "evil". This is probably the only universally accepted evil, and it always only applies to one's self.

A great example comes from certain modern cultures that feast upon monkey brains. Brains can, apparently, only be eaten fresh. This means the only way to serve monkey brain comes directly from the skull of the monkey, and the monkey must be alive very shortly previous to consumption. The end result is a round table with a hole in the middle where a monkey's neck goes to hold them still, the monkey is bludgeoned to death at the table, the skull top removed, and the brain eaten directly from the skull.

In my culture (America, general) this is seen as an act of great evil. In others, a perfectly normal daily activity.

Side note: I'd murder anyone, anywhere, in any quantity, if it was the only means to feed my starving daughter. I refuse to see that as evil.

I don't see it that way. I think of it in terms of power and potential. The only truely evil thing would be to let things like morals, laws, eating babies, making pacts with demons and whatnot hold you back from your true strength. The only sin is to not meet your potential at any cost. The "evil" is incidental and more representative of the road than the destination.


edit @ shaddus' comments

You put far too much thought into this. Elizabeth Bathory murdered countless young, beautiful virgins in horrible torture devices so that she could bathe in their blood... simply because she thought it would make her stay pretty longer.

Estarra is actually evil *sagenod*. She could end the fighting and provide the power to the mortal races to purify the basin world on her own if she wanted to, but she likes watching the puppets dance.

Bathing in blood to stay young would be roleplaying a sociopath/psychopath. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but I'm suggesting there's more depth and reward in roleplaying that you are good despite what some may see as evil. There's a big difference.

Never read it before. I just used that as a basic illustration that people who are doing the wrong thing don't always see themselves as wrong. Adolf Hitler believed he was "good" and doing the right thing.

Maybe we should just get rid of monks and bards and release Gaudiguch Hallifax already so we're not stuck with the monotonous 4 org situation. Just sayin'.