Good Conquers All. Really?

[Nostra]

During the Meet and Greet we had a discussion about guild interaction, and someone (I can't remember who) brought up something along lines of "good always wins" and that members of `evil´ guilds had to accept that if they got involved in a conflict with a guild that is `good´. Now, I know the terms good and evil are rather generalising but let's look at it from an OOC perspective and judge by what we generally view as good or evil.

Should good ultimately end up victorious in any conflict with an evil guild?

What's your opinion?

[HownDoog]

No. That's boring.

Evil winning would be a wonderful scenario to witness.

Besides, if the evil side is stronger then it makes sense for them to win over a weaker good side.

[Reese]

Well, you have to admit it doesn't seem very fair. We as people have a moral standing of good SHOULD always win. Usually, from what i've seen, is that evil gets its little victories but never all around triumphs where it counts.

HOWEVER, why can't evil win?

I mean, if a goal is to take over the world, it can't be done ICly, but why not be responsible for the deaths of a helluva lotta people via crafty plans and craftier methods. Why can't that happen?

[Thoradin]

Evil should have a Fair Chance at winning over a conflict. Granted Good wins often, those who seek to TRULY play evil characters/guilds should have their chance to shine.

I can say that it does really suck to 'farm' a guilds fame off of NPC's so to speak. I think that, in conflict between a Good and Evil guild, it should be 50/50.

[Nick]

In my opinion, good deserves to win if good is better organised and the likes. Of course, it's allways good when the "good" side wins to the evil side but I'm in no way convinced that, in-game, a good guild principally should win against an evil guild.

[Dilly]

Nooo. I say no. That wouldn't be interesting at all, now would it? Or fair.

And it would kill awesome RP opportunities. >:I

[Kaghuros]

The problem I see is that most evil plans that fail tend to overstep themselves. If you want to accumulate a vast wealth through trafficking in sacred artifacts/stolen mummies/blood diamonds/slaves and do it under people's noses you are evil, but you will probably succeed. If you want to destroy the Church of the Holy Light or kill Thrall and openly stage an attack on an institution of power, you will be destroyed with utmost prejudice by powers far bigger than you can deal with.

The secret to victory is to never overreach your means, because even the most powerful necromancy or the greatest wealth won't protect you if you go toe-to-toe with the Argent Crusade or the Stormwind Army. Lots of someones are going to get hurt, and one of them will be your character. I guarantee it.

tl;dr: Good only wins when evil is too obvious.

[Darkneon]

Good always triumphs over evil? Puh-lease. Evil wins all the time.

Governments are a necessary evil, after all.

[Rigley]

It depends in my eyes. Speaking from a removed point of just looking at a plotline, a good villain should lose in a custom lore thing, yes, as not to alter the actual lore in any permanence. When I plan a villain's works, for instance, I tend to follow that they will do evil things, and should be a threat, but at some point they can and should be able to be defeated.

That's not to say they can't have a good run, or necessarily have to die in the defeat. Heck, if one side ultimately wins it would just become boring.

Then again, I'm talking about big MWAHAHA destroy the kingdom kinds of plots. I think a group should be able to keep a reign of terror on some area just fine as well, as long as its not big enough to, say, call the guards right to their doorstep.

[Karunzo]

I did bring something up like that!
The way I've always seen it, atleast for my characters, is that they will eventually grow overconfident, to fixated on their own cards to stop and look at what others might have. This overconfidence will make them take on more then they can handle and make them fall.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Good should win every battle, evil can win the battle but good will eventually win the war in my eyes.

[Mayson]

During the Meet and Greet we had a discussion about guild interaction, and someone (I can't remember who) brought up something along lines of "good always wins" and that members of `evil´ guilds had to accept that if they got involved in a conflict with a guild that is `good´. Now, I know the terms good and evil are rather generalising but let's look at it from an OOC perspective and judge by what we generally view as good or evil.

Should good ultimately end up victorious in any conflict with an evil guild?

What's your opinion?

No. We should have the possibility, too. It depends on the way it's played, of course. After all, I'm however more concerned not about who wins, but HOW. From time to time I have the feeling, that here and there is some extra knowledge used, which maybe wouldn't be available, for example.

I won't point at anyone of course, but it seems like that from time to time. Maybe I'm just wrong.

[Grimnir]

Perhaps evil can win, but eventually it will be defeated; either by a different force of good, or by itself. Although when I think of evil, I also think of corruption.

[Krent]

And now you know the truth, Lone Star. Evil will always win because good is dumb.

Snerk snerk sneeeeeeerrrrrrrrk.

Anyway, I think that what the person who raised that point meant to say was, that the odds are stacked against evil to such a high degree that good always seems to win out by default. Mostly because the 'good guys' have tons of advantages slated towards them that the 'bad guys' can't even hope to meet. We're talking about the power of the military, social acceptance, wealth, fame, and a large number of players ready to rally to the 'good guys' call. People just naturally wanna be a hero.

So, it's not necessarily that good wins all the time, it's just that it always seems to be that way because that's what most players go for.

But, I think Kagh raised a good point. Victory isn't necessarily about burning Stormwind to the ground or parading Thrall's skull on a demonic dagger. For evil, it's about being subtle. Small. Not over-reaching your goals and trying to conquer the entire world. Being able to infiltrate the highest seats of power and slowly drip poison into the political well can be considered a victory. You don't have to be the giant badass sitting atop a throne of skulls in the ruins of a capital city to be a good villain. Sometimes, even the smallest actions can tip the scales of history.

That's something all 'evil' RP'rs have to keep in mind. The odds are stacked up way against ya. It's a huge challenge to simply -survive- as an evil dood. Gaining a major victory is almost impossible. Almost. Not entirely impossible, but almost.

The only question is which players want to try to rise up to that kinda challenge.

[pliantreality]

I did bring something up like that!
The way I've always seen it, atleast for my characters, is that they will eventually grow overconfident, to fixated on their own cards to stop and look at what others might have. This overconfidence will make them take on more then they can handle and make them fall.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Good should win every battle, evil can win the battle but good will eventually win the war in my eyes.

More accurately, I think, no one will ever win the war. Because - correct me if I'm wrong - that would be the ultimate dead-end to RP.

I think the quintessential problem is what people define as 'winning' in this case. There are no lasting victories here, not in any material sense of the word- rather, the game here seems to be one of escalating and ebbing tensions. One side does one thing, another counters or responds. There is still a zero-sum, but the important thing - above all - is for (in technical terms) stuff to be happening. Because when you cut it to the quick, that's what RP is. Stuff happening.

Evil wants to create a massive Ogre-firing super-death-cannon? Good. The 'good' guys have a go at destroying it. Maybe they destroy it- and maybe the 'bad' buys respond by sacking the good guys base with hordes of Arthur Fonzerelli clones and a shrieking Frank Zappa solo. Awesome. Stuff has happened, fun RP was had by all, and there is, in fact, more stuff to have happen.

Nothing ends. Because ending stuff is boring. Victories on both sides should be tangible- not lasting or final.

QED

[Nostra]

I think Kag raises a very good point, only what I am interested in is the conflict between two player guilds or characters, one which would generally be viewed as good and the other most would call evil. And when I say evil I don't just mean the Evil Overlords kind of evil, but also thugs, a ruthless trade-prince or maybe a secret society (oh yeeeah, hehe) bent on domination in some shadowy way.

Even if the evil doesn't overreach it's means, as Kag put it, they will end up in conflict with some "good guys". Why? Because we are roleplayers and, if you are anything like me, it is a lot more fun when there's conflict (no, conflict doesn't just equal drawing your swords) and you get to interact more with others.

I guess now that I've (hopefully) explained myself a bit better... Should good win over evil?

Edit: Damn, people are fast. Imagine that I'm mr. slenderfingers and that this was posted just after Kag's post.

Edit2: Look, even that edit took too long, now there's even more!