G
Grif ♥
Guest
Original poster
More or less, but by that argument a modern-day pistol is just a spell that fires small metal pellets at enemies. :p
We don't need straight out "Villains" so to speak. The term "Villain" entails that there are "Hero's" that exist from the get-go, which means there would be characters that are truly good, and truly bad, something that goes completely against what I believe we're trying to make. In this world, it is doubtless that people have grown isolated from society. In this isolation from normal human convention they'd be forced to view the world in a different angle, an angle focused on them, rather than them and their interaction with society(a factor that even the lone wolf baddie would have to take into account). Unless one intended to roleplay as a character already well acclimated to the land(a task better left to NPC's methinks), then they would be severely limiting how their character would develop, and stunting their overall experience by trying to make their characters sole purpose to be a "Villain".Ah, this took off nicely I see, though I'll just linger for a while until we - hopefully - discus the role of being a villain.
Agreed. Though, I'm curiouse. Would Corruption grow faster in a person who commited more "evil" acts? and would the corruption somehow be beneficial, like say the more corrupted you are the more beast like you become, and thus more powerful as a result?We don't need straight out "Villains" so to speak. The term "Villain" entails that there are "Hero's" that exist from the get-go, which means there would be characters that are truly good, and truly bad, something that goes completely against what I believe we're trying to make. In this world, it is doubtless that people have grown isolated from society. In this isolation from normal human convention they'd be forced to view the world in a different angle, an angle focused on them, rather than them and their interaction with society(a factor that even the lone wolf baddie would have to take into account). Unless one intended to roleplay as a character already well acclimated to the land(a task better left to NPC's methinks), then they would be severely limiting how their character would develop, and stunting their overall experience by trying to make their characters sole purpose to be a "Villain".
tl;dr
Its entirely reasonable for characters to do good or bad things, but if they are made solely to do good or bad things, the overall experience is stunted.
I think you completely missed the point. Obviously there is no good or bad in anything Souls related, everything is grey. Hell even Manus can't really be called 'bad'. My point was, you have the player characters, then the... Think more, boss-like characters. Not really abominations and such, since that's just plain unbalanced. But more like Father Gascoigne, The First Hunter, etc... They aren't evil, your character isn't evil, yet the boss's oppose the PC due to personal belief, corruption, and madness(the humanoid ones that is). Now I can't see much character development in a souls type RP as it is, obviously it would be there. But how much can you really develop emotionally? The first hour in a place like Yharnam is already going to massively twist your mentality.We don't need straight out "Villains" so to speak. The term "Villain" entails that there are "Hero's" that exist from the get-go, which means there would be characters that are truly good, and truly bad, something that goes completely against what I believe we're trying to make. In this world, it is doubtless that people have grown isolated from society. In this isolation from normal human convention they'd be forced to view the world in a different angle, an angle focused on them, rather than them and their interaction with society(a factor that even the lone wolf baddie would have to take into account). Unless one intended to roleplay as a character already well acclimated to the land(a task better left to NPC's methinks), then they would be severely limiting how their character would develop, and stunting their overall experience by trying to make their characters sole purpose to be a "Villain".
tl;dr
Its entirely reasonable for characters to do good or bad things, but if they are made solely to do good or bad things, the overall experience is stunted.
Bosses are stationary purely for gameplay purposes. I don't think it's a stretch to say that someone like Gascoigne would hunt the PCs down, at the end of the day they're also hunters. So they'd be hunting monsters also, It'd also add interesting match ups, could you imagine fighting Gascoinge, losing, he hunts you. You go fight The Vicar, and then he shows up, I think it'd be likely he'd hunt the beast before the hunter. Little events like that and what not. Conflict wouldn't always be necessary either, you had to fight Gascoigne because gameplay purpose. In a RP you could probably talk them down and what not. I don't know... Seems like a fun idea to me. But I'm on the BB train regardless.We're going to need someone to be the bosses/boss type characters even if just for the fights. However they've not really often been people who moved around or did much. They were simply waiting for the player to get there.
Raider, how would one effectively "RP" a sedentary character? Well, sedentary until another PC reaches them.
Also, for Character Dev, well our PC in the actual games are silent, but in the RP we could slowly twist the characters. Show them falling deeper into the trap that is the city.
I disagree. There is no clear evil, especially if the 'veteran hunters' hunt the newer ones because of a greater motive, from their point of view they'd be saving the city, since being there for so long would have twisted their mindset. There is nothing evil about them, or even what they're doing, I mean, is Eileen evil? No. She can be called more good than evil, and she's a hunter hunter.Having party that live sin the city and is hunting them down creates a clear evil here. I say there should just be veteren hunters, sometimes pc's sometimes npc's, that are at varying levels of corruption and madness. Each one will be unique in how they handle and interact with the party.
It's just that hunters hunting hunters is in no way a clear evil in my personal opinion.That was my point, I didn't want a clear evil. I wanted hunters that could be ambiguous. I want that feeling where you can walk up on another hunter, and not be sure weather they will strike up a conversation or just strike you for some unknown reason they likely have to kill you.
Of course! And feel free to drop any ideas/suggestions.Ive been reading so far, but I´ve been wanting to ask. Could there be space left for two more people in this? Me and a close friend of mine that is.