It is impossible to play a plausable evil character in this game, because the game world is set up in such a way that all of civilization is good. The closest we have to evil is the thieves' guild, which is really just chaotic, as they don't seem to persue any evil goals.

I haven't been in TF since the first few months, but from what I've heard, the evil players have been squashed even there and they "police themselves."

In order to make my point, I reference a free MUD in which there is never a shortage of evil player characters.

This game is based on kingdoms, all of which are controlled by player tribunals that can control the law mobs. Inductions to such tribunals is based on RP and the decision is in the hands of the player tribunal leader (who often give themselves titles such as Duke, Arbitor, Archon, etc). Two of these kingdoms are markedly evil, one of which is defended by undead, and the other a ruthless evil empire. A good character such as an elven paladin in either of these cities will last about as long as an evil player in Dragonrealms. The policy is set up more like TF there so you'll likely be killed quickly if not carved into steaks and have your posessions destroyed or taken. Fortunately, this type of behavior is almost exclusively between players of opposing alignments-- paladins never kill each other, good priests don't kill other good priests, etc.

I see dragonrealms in its current form like this game with all of the evil removed. Imagine the free city of Exile, formed long ago by people who escaped the evil empire without the evil empire on the other side of the globe ready to take them over once more. Imagine the peaceful priests of wisdom and nature without the abominations created by necromancers and opression of free speech in the Empire.

DR is what you get. The GMs sometimes try to play the bag guys, but interaction in these events is purely optional. There is no unifying force, nothing to defend ourselves against. And worst of all, for evil characters, there is no safe haven. Nothing is more comforting for my 110-year-old halfling necromancer after a hard day of raising, controling and bringing undead into the heart of the "good" territory than to relax in an inn while undead soldiers patrol the streets and Hulking undead necrophidiuses guard the gates. If the paladins do come looking for me and break their way through the undead I can always call up my tribunal leader and they'll have a war on their hands-- and what leader of a good, free nation would want to start a war with such a place?

I'll play an evil character as soon as there's a place where the odds are in my favor-- where lynch mobs don't come after me but after my new enemies.


The concept of necromancers and the way policy was propsed to change to accomodate them is a good start, but if the development is ever finished, they will need their own city to be able to flourish-- an impenetrable city whose gates are guarded by a pair of 150th level EXP draining monsters, and streets are patrolled by less skilled, though equally capable of draining EXP undead creatures. Anyone found using this area to "hunt" would eventually be taken out (with another exp hit) by a nice lvl 200 assassin. Now if you're a necromancer or a citizen you can ask the undead to open the gates, and rest assured, paladins and clerics of Hodierna, Chadatru, etc will not be welcome (even though clerics can't officialy choose a god...)

Giving the monsters levels (like we have with the outcasts in Shard) gives the possibilty that a large enough force of good characters could bash down the gates and wipe out the necromancers, assassins and graverobbers that this city is sure to harbor, but it should certainly be monitored so that it does not become another leveling area.

... well thats just me wishing we could take the DR playerbase, skill system, item system and combat system and combine it with the world and player-controlled cities and RP based consent rules (necromancer= kill anyone, paladin= don't kill anyone except evil people(but show them no mercy), rogue= rp a chosen alignment (but stick to one!)) of this other unnamed free MUD.

Seeing as there are a few leaders in DR right now that support slavery, genocide, and addiction to samatak to increase their profits, I'd say they were "evil".

Clerics can choose a god, it's based upon favors and clerical NPCs like the monk will say good to know you're taking your duties to blah blah blah seriously.

I agree that policy isn't so hot on the knock down drag-out fight between a typical hero and the typical evil leader but I don't think your changes, which aren't really policy based, would be appropriate.

Citizens in general will pick what they think is best for themselves, whether or not they are "correct" in their choice isn't important, so I would guess most people don't care to be ruled by a necromancer, the whole walking dead thing usually freaks people out, although the Gypsies of Therengia are ruled by a necromancer.

So, lie/deceive/steal until you have the power to make sure that they, citizens, cannot go against your choice.

The whole "attack me and you'll have a war on your hands" deal has been happening IG since the Outcasts started sending people out of the city and it has definitely been a concern that something like that would renew the conflict.

I am --- Navak

On the alignment scale, I would consider doing things for the sole purpose of increasing profits to be, at best, "mean" or "ruthless." Certainly not evil. Truly evil people delight in these things (perhaps as a a result of a warped mind from dealing with powerful sorceries) and engage in actions such as these simply for this pleasure in itself. I don't know where this "few leaders" are, but I bet they're NPCs who either don't control cities, or whose city laws don't differ from the chaotic city of "the crossing" or good city of theren.

Citizens in general pick where they live, unless they can't move. Tell the undead you a freaked out and want to leave-- just let your friends know you are planning to join their ranks first. These people aren't going anywhere, and if they do, who cares? just kill them, animate them and bring them back as undead guards-- who needs peasants?

Lie/deceive/steal != evil
slaughter/animate/bring udnead back to by my servants until I have enough citizens to make a city.. that might be evil.

A lot of times, a necromancer can get away with killing someone when surrounded by like-minded folks if they really needed the body-- maybe it would be more evil to kill without even using the body?

I see the outcast war as a step in the right direction, but PCs should be able to side with, or mimic the actions of the Outcasts. This, however, would require a significant policy change. (how does someone register to get consent on everyone?)

>for necromancers shoudn't be alone in their sanctuaries.

No, and I don't know if it really should be guild based, entirely either. Dio, fundamentally, is evil by the definition of 'right thinking' people. He won't give up the right to act and talk like anyone else 'to protect the children' or 'for the greater good of his kind'.

It would be wonderful to have enclaves with guardians that keep all characters with players under 18 from entering, where most of policy didn't hold sway. The only things I'd keep, as an extention of prime, are the AFK scripting rules. Although I would, ahem, encourage at least some adherance to role playing by occasionally running a GMNPC through who slaughtered anyone grossly OOC pour les encouragmente les outres. I.e. in these enclaves, you are encouraged to kill, or try to, anyone you felt stepped on your dainty little role playing sensitivities. Bluntly, no consent policy, no lauguage policy, no vulgarity restrictions, if you can't stand the heat, go back outside.

Would actually be rather nice, to just have a place to go and hang out and not have to worry about the rug rodents on occasion. The big difference between these enclaves and a private room would be that, like a bar in real.life, its not your neck if a minor overhears or sees something they shouldn't, it's the bartenders. It would actually be even better because everyone would be automatically carded at the door. You'd also have to shut off the gweths, but there are already places in prime where thats true.

There's already precedent for protected spaces, such as the estate holder areas. These would just be for age, not what the player is paying per month.

>Once this is established, the current policy regarding PvP would only apply to characters on the same side of the "fence"

The problem with this are 'evil' empaths and clerics, particularly. I think there should be plain old open PvP areas, anyone against anyone. If you're in one of the open field areas, well, you'd either be more valuable alive than dead or just not worth bothering with. However, in these areas, because it is open PvP anyone can defend anyone else, too. An empath can, without worrying about policy, have all their buddies gang up on a particularly obnoxious idiot and kill them. A non-combatant can hire a 'bodyguard' so they can have a drink in peace without having to worry about some policy playing moron stealing from them and then hiding behind policy when the bodyguard backstabs 'em. Oh, yes, no thugging, no guards and no snitches. If you set off a room trap, get caught stealing, roar, use a forbidden area spell, etc., no passerby are going to report to the city guards.

It would be, actually, in the ideal case, very like some of the classic ghettos. People would police their own without recourse to the laws of the state, because the laws don't hold in those areas.

You know, there is more than one kind of evil.

The most insiduous kind will convince you that it's benign or even that it doesn't exist.... then it wrecks havock and strife sereptitiously.

There is more to the imagination in the realms besides organized crime or bloodshed.

Get two men fighting over one fair damsel, and you may start an entire war, one that has shaped history.... in fact, several have happened that way already.

~Amo

---

"You hurry a miracle man, you get rotten miracles" ~ Miracle Max

This is no ordinary miracle! http://home.sprintmail.com/~hopebuilt

Empaths, join us: http://www.geocities.com/saerhyn/ESC/Coalition.html

>Clerics can choose a god, it's based upon favors and clerical NPCs like the monk will say good to know you're taking your duties to blah blah blah seriously.

Under those terms, everyone can choose a god, just don't expect NPC's to run around saying thanks for choosing <god/dess>. I am a Cleric and I can't choose my goddess.


Ebil Cleric Bambina

>><<[PALLUSA]Lie/deceive/steal != evil>>

>>Wrong.

Wrong.

Lying does not make a person evil, nor does deceiving or stealing. It depends only on motivations and circumstances. Play any RPG where you start off captured in an enemy/evilmoster base and you must escape. The first step is to lie to the guard in an attempt to decieve him where you can either then escape, steal his key or kill him. You then make your way out with either guns blazing or artful deception with more stealing of keys. This doesn't seem evil to me, yet, under current policy, its hard to do more than this.
Not to bring up D&D alignments, but this type of behavior would only classify you as chaotic. Examples: 1) Robin Hood 2) James Bond 3) undercover cops

---

when I say that all of civilization is good, I of course meant the currently developed PC-populatable cities. No city currently offers much respite for any type of evil behavior. They're ruled by good kings or democratic, or frankly unknown governments, because only GMs or GMPCs can hold any position of real authority, and we don't have enough gms running around all the time to have active, believeable governments everywhere.

>>any stronghold, city, or otherwise easily accessible locale, that purports evil deeds and is known to harbor those that commit evil acts will not last long.

This is not necesserily true. If all good people are crusaders or ruled by zealous "world police" who send armies of their citizens to remote locations throughout the world to get rid of these evil places, then they might have a chance of ridding the world of evil, but while they're destroying one evil camp, more are springing up elsewhere. Not to mention that if the evil cities also include necromancy or other as-yet-unknown atrocities, ordinary people would be quite reluctant to involve themselves in a war until there was really an imminent threat, by which point there will be at best a mighty war, and at worst, defeat and destruction.

I'm not advocating for the necromancer guild. I don't have a commoner and I don't plan to join the guild. I really don't still be playing if/when they ever come out. What really interests me now is the way policy was propsed to change when they are introduced.

>>I highly doubt there will be a Necromancer guild within ANY city walls, above or beneath the streets.

Question:if no guild will be within existing cities, where will the guilds be? Outside in the wilderness? It can't be a tower like the current mage guilds. I would propose that a smart necromancer's guild lead by powerful necromancers would need to be self-sufficient. This means brining in people besides necromancers, whether they need be undead or not depends on the level of sofistication of their animated undead. They will likely need non-necromancers. If I was a necromancer I would want a bunch of really stupid and/or brainwashed barbarians. Because of stories of the powers of necromancers, some adventurers who already are established in other guilds will seek them out, not to destroy them, but to benefit from their powers. Some of these people may be killed, but some may find themselves worthwile associates (and perhaps unable to disassociate themselves after some time..)

For this reason, whatever policy is in place surrounding necromancer PCs must be able to be extended to non-necromancer characters.

If we can extend it to non-necromancers once necromancers are released, there is no reason that it cannot be extend presently, except that the world is set up in such a way that these characters would have no place to go.
Is it logical that no evil or otherwise vicious leader has established a city anywhere where the citizens live only as long as they prove useful?
Open up a pirate island or something and allow citizenship (and joining invasions from the pirate side!.. there shoudl be some reward though besides getting killed eventually)

>>But, do evil persons seriously need a city, simply, no. The war that would wage, would never end, and then the world will be destroyed and evil will rule (read the description). Why, because urging that kind of war would bring harm to people (on both sides), which is an "evil" act. So who truly is good?

I think your explanation for why you think the answer is "simply" no better describes a reason for why they should have at least one evil city. Hopefully dragonrealms should never end, so the war should never end entirely. There certainly will be times of peace when one side is dominated, but eventually they will rebuild enough power to make another stand. Perhaps the "good" nations will be willing to put up with a certain level of harm from the meaner people before declaring war. This could mean peace as long as nobody from either side crosses "the line" which could mean as long as you don't kill more than 1 or 2 people in a day, don't do more than 100 plat in damage or as long as you don't kill anyone important or otherwise influential and war-driven. Then every once in a while we'll get a zealous and charismatic player to rile up one side and the war will be back on.

Since your character is evil in his own way, what types of things can you do as an evil person?

Interesting dialogue? when good and evil meet we get dialogue? Isn't that what we get when two old friends meet?

I'm not understanding why it seems that the people posting here want necromancers to be powerless freaks hiding from the town guards thatthen pop up every once in a while either to be slaughtered by the necro-hunters or to have neato conversations with people (while dead maybe?).

maybe they're afraid it would make the game overly focused on PvP, but that is why I liked the idea mentioned by some other people about certain areas where the consent rules break down. You can avoid them and deal only with the evilst of people on a purely conversational level.

<<[PALLUSA]Lying does not make a person evil, nor does deceiving or stealing. >>

I never said, and certainly didn't mean to imply, that those acts make a person evil. The acts themselves, however, are evil acts. Can a good person use lies, deception, or theft to 'good' use? Certainly, but that doesn't make the act any less evil.

<<[PALLUSA]Play any RPG where you start off captured in an enemy/evilmoster base and you must escape. The first step is to lie to the guard in an attempt to decieve him where you can either then escape, steal his key or kill him. >>

And I would retort that the act of deception would prove the dishonor of the 'hero' of the game, but that is neither here nor there. Just because some anonymous RPG campaign creator writes such a thing into their game does not make the act any less malicious or (gasp) evil.

<<[PALLUSA]Question:if no guild will be within existing cities, where will the guilds be? Outside in the wilderness? It can't be a tower like the current mage guilds. >>

Two locations that I would suspect would have a Necro guild are the crocs area off the NTR and near Ker'Leor. Illithi has many pockets of uncivilized area. The only location I can see the Necro guild being within city limits is in Qi, and that's more for playability if a guild is located on the islands at all.

<<[PALLUSA]I'm not understanding why it seems that the people posting here want necromancers to be powerless freaks hiding from the town guards thatthen pop up every once in a while either to be slaughtered by the necro-hunters or to have neato conversations with people (while dead maybe?).>>

The true Necromancers will have no problem playing within the guidelines outlined in policy, and will rise within the guild and become the power to be reckoned with you seem to want. However, necromancy in DR 1) isn't the raise the dead power you keep spouting off and 2) isn't a quick road to power that you seem to believe. Research what Necromancy means within Elanthia and maybe your suggestions will be taken more seriously.


~Fallen Hero

The council of M'riss supports slavery and addiction to samatak.

I am --- Navak

>>>>Clerics can choose a god, it's based upon favors and clerical NPCs like the monk will say good to know you're taking your duties to blah blah blah seriously.

<<[Ebil Cleric]Under those terms, everyone can choose a god, just don't expect NPC's to run around saying thanks for choosing <god/dess>. I am a Cleric and I can't choose my goddess.>>

>Not even the 39 are represented, not to mention the rakash, prydaen, world dragon, all god, etc. Until all gods are represented, important mechanics that take your god into account can't be implemented.

I guess I should have made it a seperate paragraph... I am a Cleric and I can*'*t choose MY goddess.

>>I don't know any history of Prince Vorclaf, he's used as an example (being a noble).<<

>Amusingly enough, there HAVE been sinister rumors about Vorclaf in the past.

In the past? I tell you what, I'll never forget when his guards threw me out of my own guild!

Ebil Cleric Bambina

Evil and chaos are completely different.

<<Interesting dialogue? when good and evil meet we get dialogue? Isn't that what we get when two old friends meet?>>

Joebob and Jimbob have known each other for years, they have recently reunited in Crossing. "Hey Joebob", "Hey Jimbob", "How's life JB?", "Pretty good, you?", "I been good", "Good...so how's JaneSmith?", "Oh, she's decent", "Thats good to know", Here they catch up on old times since they were old friends, "Well, you gonna be around for awhile?", "Probably JB, not sure", "Alright, been good seeing you again". Interesting? No.

JimJoe is plotting to overthrow the prince, JoeJr is the princes guard. "So we have caught you JimJoe", "Seems that way, but what charges have you brought against me that you think will hold?", "Why charges against the Prince, duh", "I laugh in your face sir, it won't work", "We shall see, come along", Here they have minute conversations while JJ is being dragged to the dungeon, "And here you will stay JimJoe", "This is unlawful, you have no evidence!", "Ah, there you are wrong, someone witnessed your evil act", the door slams and JimJoe begins plotting again. Interesting, alot more so then say, old friends.

<<Since your character is evil in his own way, what types of things can you do as an evil person?>>

There isn't that much my character "can" do, since when I start the little plot I have going (personally), someone who's not into RP, uses that great verb, THUMP. When you're 13th lvl in this game, and are trying to portray something that isn't the "norm", you are easily stopped in continuing that by others that aren't interested.

<<I'm not understanding why it seems that the people posting here want necromancers to be powerless freaks hiding from the town guards thatthen pop up every once in a while either to be slaughtered by the necro-hunters or to have neato conversations with people (while dead maybe?).>>

I don't think necromancers are powerless, nor should they be. But if you want to come into a city run by "good" characters, and you practice the art or returning the dead, do you really expect those people to let you in with open arms? As I've said before, there are plenty of places that are off the beaten path, that only a handful know. You are going to be hunted, face it, read the histories of cats and dogs to understand why they hate necros so much. I think playing a necromancer could have some great opportunities for awesome RP, and I've even thought of rerolling once the guild comes out (unless I'm 20th by then).

The war between good and evil will not work, because people will come and go, and soon they will forget why they are fighting for anyway. The GM's don't have the time on their hands to even try to do something that grand. Look at this current war, I think Sorrow's war, which everyone talks about, was more well thought out and well executed. Can you imagine the insane amount of reports the GMs would handle, "OMG necrojim just killed me with his army of undead, I have consent right?", "OMG, joebarb just killed me because I have a graft", "OMG OMG OMG".

Its just hard to do something "evil" while being a PC. Those that can pull it off with ease, I salute you, those that have a hard time know what I'm probably going through. Its hard to get people (PCs) to join in your event if you can't unleash hordes of evil, or it takes a group effort to take you down (credit to those that explained that, cause its true). Therefore, we're left with "interesting dialog".

But no, you don't need a city, find a place off the beaten path and plot there, you may find interesting allies.


Peon Crayton-- (insert something here)

You hear the distant echo of a savage Horde snarling in barbaric disapproval of your deeds.

>>[Drongol's player]This, right here, is the problem. You see, in Dragonrealms, Necromancers are not overtly powerful. This is largely because they do not exist as a playable Guild.
At the time where they come out, they are going to be survival prime. This is because their primary goal is to survive, according to Rigby. Hiding and stalking is important, as is climbing and swimming (to get to obscured areas to practice their "arts").

I don't think we need to restrict this discussion to "facts" that we have heard about the necromancer guild that "will be coming out."
Things change. I understand necros as you describe them here, but I dont see why it needs to be that way, or why we need to wait for however many years it is going to take to release the necromancer guild to make evil characters genuinely playable.

>>Why Simutronics would suddenly change that and allow Necromancers to snert out and then run back to their super-protected "our monsters are infinitely better than your monsters" city is something I cannot see.

They should do this becaues it would balance the way the system is now. If everyone has consent on outted necromancrs then Drongol can go out in the wilderness and slay a necromancer (gaining soul?) and then return to his super-protected "you can't escape our town guards no matter what your skill" city. Maybe he'll get one kill, but the guards will instantly arrest him. Do you think it's likely that using necro powers will be allowed in most of the major cities?

In order to support evil pcs-- real ones that can exist today, not just necromancers that may or may not ever exist-- there simply needs to be one area of the game controlled by a genuinely evil NPC that will lend his or her protection in exchange for unquestioned loyalty.
This could be a pirate captain powerful enough to control a small land mass, or an powerful sorceror (lets not say necromancer since necromancer means weak snerty pc in DR) who controls an area and population though magical domination.

For those who ask how these places could have been allowed to develop when we have the ZEF etc, we'll say that have always existed, and were just in an unreleased province. But now it's too late to get rid of them. It would take at least 2 pay quests to have a chance of success, and by then a new place will have sprouted up.

>>The true Necromancers will have no problem playing within the guidelines outlined in policy, and will rise within the guild and become the power to be reckoned with you seem to want. However, necromancy in DR 1) isn't the raise the dead power you keep spouting off and 2) isn't a quick road to power that you seem to believe. Research what Necromancy means within Elanthia and maybe your suggestions will be taken more seriously.
>>~Fallen Hero
The introduction of necromancers will also include a change in policy. Whatever notions you have about the necromancer guild will likely fail to be factual when (if) the guild is released. I would like to discuss the creation of the necromancer guild, but I won't because I don't feel as though developers for this game are interested in discussing works-in-progress with the customers. Policy, however, is an easier thing to change.

>>Maybe we should just break down and argue for the release (within the bounds of P5) of an autocratic, totalitarian state, in which the guards will randomly execute, once per RL day, any PC found within their area of influence (acknowledged by the provincial government or otherwise) unless said PC is seen to be conforming with the (constantly changing) rules and regulations regarding appearance and dress, food and drink, and service of the public.
>>Amagaim; the player of,

That would be a great addition, except change the requirements for non-execution to "total loyalty to the autocrat" which can be demonstrated in ways that would make it difficult for the PC to live in any other civilized area. (bring 1 elf ear per week or you die; if you're an elf, you die. Try to escape, you die. So you can either regularly kill elves or never associate with them)

>>There isn't that much my character "can" do, since when I start the little plot I have going (personally), someone who's not into RP, uses that great verb, THUMP. When you're 13th lvl in this game, and are trying to portray something that isn't the "norm", you are easily stopped in continuing that by others that aren't interested.
>>Peon Crayton--

This is exactly my point. Evil characters need support. You say now that you can't be evil because of thump. When you get too old to thump, you'll be killed, ignored or reported for harrassment.
You need some type of support, and the mechanics to gain such support do not currently exist, without breaking policy.
The solution is a change in policy. Even if you don't like any of my "ideas" I feel that you should at least agree with me here.

I don't really think RP needs to be voluntary. People deal with dying in invasions (though some not without complaining heavily..) they should be able to deal with evil player characters. (or maybe ive just been playing too many rp-required games)
I would like to see pvp without consent removed and replaced by PK without RP.

>>The war between good and evil will not work, because people will come and go, and soon they will forget why they are fighting for anyway

if they forget why they are fighting, then there should be peace. If there is peace, then the evil is allowed to continue to exist and grow stronger, continuing to insult other civilizations to greater extents until they are forced to return to war.

>>Can you imagine the insane amount of reports the GMs would handle, "OMG necrojim just killed me with his army of undead, I have consent right?", "OMG, joebarb just killed me because I have a graft", "OMG OMG OMG".

Both situations can be easily handled with "[SEND]>Rp it out." If these reports continue by the same players, they should have report removed or be put into the cell to read policy about how necromancers kill people and people kill necromancers.

>>Therefore, we're left with "interesting dialog".

Just because something is the case (and I agree with you that it is) does not mean that it needs to be. Things can change, and if necromancers are ever introduced, policy will be changed to accomodate them. I just think that non-necro characters should be included in whatever changes occur.

>>I think playing a necromancer could have some great opportunities for awesome RP, and I've even thought of rerolling once the guild comes out (unless I'm 20th by then).

I think it is very safe to assume you'll be beyond 20th by then.(if you're still playing that is)

jed, 'pathfinder'

"The solution is a change in policy. Even if you don't like any of my "ideas" I feel that you should at least agree with me here."

Why if I disagree with your basic vision would I agree with you?

"I don't really think RP needs to be voluntary."

And here is the crux of your issue. You want to impose your RP on other players. You however don't want others to impose their "good" RP on you(re the current status).

Whether you agree or not, it is possible to RP evil now. However your RP opportunity ends when it goes beyond the point of RP with another character to impeding their RP and crosses into Harassment land.

There are lots of ways to be evil....the most evil of them not obvious.

Flavius

>>And here is the crux of your issue. You want to impose your RP on other players. You however don't want others to impose their "good" RP on you(re the current status).

I do want people to be able to impose their RP on other players. The game feels very disconnected as it is, in that players only rp when they want, how they want with who they want. One character's roleplay should have an effect on everyone elses.

this is my 7th year playing my character, and I've never been in any rp that wasn't either preplanned or "dialog" rp- excepting getting killed suddenly by invasion monsters that are always too tough. He isn't evil and won't ever become evil. I'm not going to make another character to be evil or be a necromancer or any other guild.

The second part of your statement about what I want is incorrect. Players of good characters should be able to impose their RP just as well. The current situation isn't like this, however; its only NPCs, GMNPCs and GM initiated wars and invasions.

Most everyone loves when GMs run these events. I would just like to see player-run events that mimic these. Eventually they would stop being called events and just become part of the normal world.

It doesn't need to be hard to play an evil PC. The lack of them, as well as the testimonials of players of supposedly evil pcs, shows this to be the case.

It certainly isn't difficult to be evil in the real world, and real-life evil people have plenty of places to hide, even if billions of dollars and the best men and technology is set to work on their capture.

How about some support for players who want to play these characters in this fantasy world instead of creating a character that mimics their own personality?

>Selfish? Yes, we can do that. Scheming, sure. Manipulative, okay. But evil, evil to the point where your goal is something along the lines of massive death and destruction and maiming is not really attainable, IMO.

At a fundamental level, there are two kinds of 'evil' in most fantasy genres. The common Sauron/DR/Lackey/Wicked Witch/generic bad guy. The one who kills, maims, steals and is generally cruel to small animals for no reason other than to give the good guy protagonist someone to defeat. Then there is the Mellisandre/Banewreaker/Marc Remillard/extremely rare 'bad guy'. This type is doing what they think is best against impossible odds and considered evil by right thinking people.

Bluntly, classic fantasy villians are snerts with enough power to do something about it until the hero comes along and does away with them. That is the formula of family style fantasy. Sauron was just a snert with so much power it took Tolkien hundreds of pages of prose to walk him.

The problems with a PC villians are twofold. The first you mentioned, it takes too much time to build up a character to the point where they're any kind of real threat. These are just 'void bait' and no real issue in the end. The second is that you can't have a character who is doing what they think is right but violates what anyone else thinks is right. That kind of evil character, while an acceptable antagonist in a more mature game, is not in DR.

Maybe the answer is something along the lines of the bloodlust system. Being able to play mobs who join in invasions and are tagged as such, for anyone to kill. That's probably as close as DR could ever come to having player controlled evil 'characters'.