Good Vs Evil.. GW2

for the love of god and all that is holy, why do people want Server Segregation to be part of the PvP mechanic?!?

"Server Pride"?!? I want to play with anyone whenever, like I can on GW, not have to roll a new character on another server and restart my guild a second time just to play with people I know

Personally I like the idea that the playables aren't sorted between "good" and "evil".

That's one thing that bugs me about other games, this insistence that you be a goody goody or a baddie. And usually, the good guys are pretty and the bad guys are monstruous. Lamelamelame. I don't care what BS they try to feed me about WoW, it's pretty obvious that most Alliance are "good guys", most Horde are "bad guys", etc. It's a dumb system, but then they go and try to add dimension to it by saying "oh, well see we screwed up" or "oh, see we do care" and it falls on its face.

That was one of the good things about Guild Wars - (mostly) everybody important was human (or formerly so), so even if there were "good guys" and "bad guys", there were also people in between, and it was a spectrum across the whole race. Yeah, Kormir is awesome and selfless, Shiro is badass and evil, but there're others who are more normal. Bokka, for example - he's greedy and foolish, yes, but not evil, just complacent. Or the Kurzicks and the Luxons - proud and arrogant, to the point that they are almost unwilling to work together for mutual defense, but they do want to take care of their peoples.

I hope that we maintain something resembling moral ambiguity in GW2. It'll probably come down to either Races of Alignment or Races of Hats, and personally I'd rather have stereotype-species than alignment-species, especially since EotN did such a good job of setting out all the hats for us.

And everyone's gonna play Chaotic Neutral anyway, so yeah.

They've said switching servers should be as easy as switching districts, I believe, so no worries over rerolling to play with friends on a different server and no sense in "server pride."

They already said, 2 years ago now, that you can switch worlds so that you can play with your friends. Their stated reason for having separate worlds in the first place, was to have a smaller community, so that you would encounter the same people out in the world. Since they also said the battles will be world vs world, with benefits given to worlds that win in PvP, there will naturally be some server pride aspect coming from that. There is an implication that it is different from today's district situation, otherwise why even mention the concept of worlds, if it's just districts. Probably you can't switch worlds constantly to get the uber bonus from whichever world is currently winning. It would kind of defeat the build a small community aspect, if everyone is constantly switching.

How do they balance being able to switch whenever you want so that you can play with friends, against everyone switching to the world with the current uber bonus? Well, that's a design problem they can figure out.

For the Good vs Evil idea... I believe ANET did say there would be 2 direct plot lines to reach the end of GW2... this could be the Good Road vs the Evil Road... like in KOTOR2. But I am just guessing like everyone else is.

It might be that, whatever the benefits are, you needed to belong to that server at the time they were earned to receive them. Even then, though, there might be the risk of all the good players congregating onto one so they could hold onto them.

The best solution is probably simply to make it prestige-based in some form and not make it good enough that people are going to switch servers for it. Given the favour thing, I suspect ANet has learned about letting PvP control PvE.

Without reading this thread, I have to laugh. A friend (father of my brother-in-law) asked me about alignment/good/evil in GW.

I was kinda confused, as it seems you're always on the good side (PvE) or playing some CTF-wannabe (PvP) sports-match.

I do miss the good ole' days of DnD where alignment was a major part of the game. Ahh, to run up to evil NPC's and play them for fools!!!

I agree. Adding in 'alignment' sides to GW2 would just distract from the fact that the game is about a world of warring Guilds. Or at least, it was. GW shifted from notable guilds (White Mantle, Stone Summit etc) to clans, to nations. Still, I think it's a more interesting idea than the typical race v race/good v evil.

I don't understand the purpose of alignments in an MMO. Considering the appeal of an online game lies in the interaction with other players splitting the population for the sake of lore doesn't make sense.

It wasn't even for lore reasons. Everything that happened in Frozen Throne was purely to set up the circumstances they wanted for WoW, and the last part of that to be completed was (surprise!) the campaign which resplit Horde and Alliance after being united against the common enemy pre-expansion. They could easily have left the races unsplit without violating the lore - start everyone in Kalimdor and have sorting out the Lordaeron situation and the racial tension remaining there as one of their plot points.

In fact, the split was something that came up mid-development.

Charr ... no, they are not 'evil', unless by evil you mark everyone who opposes the human race. Charr are exactly like men you know ... they burn, rape and kill, have their own philosophy and warrior's code and conquer adjacent territories as well as plan ahead their invasions, not to mention magical and technical aspect of their warfare.

I suspect few really evil factions/sides myself:

- dragons (pretty obvious, but they are sort of above-good-and-evil)
- undead in Orr ruins
- undead/ghosts in Ascalon ruins (not sure yet if they will expand and be a threat to everyone or just are lost Ascalonian Souls who pursue eternal revenge on Charr ... and for some reason can't enter The Mists)
- destroyers (bitten, weak and scattered, with stone dwarves on their toes, but still exist ... perhaps reunited and strengthened under Primordus banner?)
- Summit Dwarves ... not really evil just like the Charr, unless corrupted by some malicious force and used as a standing army in GW2
- turmoil in Kryta ... new civil wars and fights for the throne, depending on who takes real power and becomes a grey eminence behind the stage (Mursaat again? You never know, they weren't completely extinct to be honest in GW after titan invasion, they simply hid themselves well to survive ... and plot revenge)
- Cantha ... conservative Emperor is not really evil, but you can't say who's behind the stage again and what did Emperor use to bind Luxons and Kurzicks to his will as well as completely cut off the borders besides military might (sort-of NF case with using the demons to do your bidding ...)
- corrupted monsters in Kurzick forest ... perhaps stone cathedral getting out of control and becoming a powerful gateway and gathering place for all kinds of creatures lurking in the shadow
- jade monsters in the jade sea ... similar as Kurzick case
- Krait ... since I was impressed by the conspirational theory behind them
- destroyer-like faction which could be seen on concept art from cancelled Utopia campaign and many other things we have no idea about
- Tengu wars all over again ... they are not really evil (human syndrome) but their hate towards Sensali is yet to diminish ... and they didn't like how humans treated them either, so perhaps periodic alliance with Sensali is an option

This and I'll add Aion to that list.

-dragons --> /agree
-Undead in Orr --> They are Undead Dragon's Minions, so they aren't an side force or another threat, they just make part of a bigger threat: the Ancient Dragons.
-Undead/ghosts in Ascalon ruins -->
so yeah, basically Charr aren't going to be the only hostiles to the Ghosts.
-Destroyers -->Whilst I continue to say that the Dwarf race decimated every single bit of the Destroyers, and with the last mission of GWEN, we all know that the Destroyers were tied to The Great Destroyer,and, as we know, again, we killed the Great, making all the other: puff. and who survived, if any, in 250 after that, would be already dead. So, whilst I continue to say that, that assumption always comes up.
-Summit Dwarves -->
Read that, I won't even comment.
-turmoil in Kryta --> /agree
-Cantha--> The actual emperor isn't the one who wiped the Kurzs and the Luxons, but yeah, if 'what the Emperor used' to bind them and to drive-off the non-human races, was passed through generations, yeah, that could mean that there was someone behind the scene, so /agree.
-corrupted monsters--> don't know how/why that would work.
-Krait--> meh.
-destroyer-like faction-->the Tanneks, were the destroyers in Utopia. The destroyers were the Tanneks in GWEN.
-Tengu --> They will probably go into hiding after the attack of the Emperor.

@ Stone Summit

Well, I won't quite agree on this one. Stone Summit is along most mysterious factions in the original GW and I pretty much doubt they would cease to exist completely. Notice how the Charr have lost their rule of 'titan worshippers' just to quickly reorganise. They worshipped titans (and in turn destroyers somewhat) too, but they didn't fall with their demise. The fact is that we don't really know much of how do they cope later, it's merely an assumption. I'm more than certain they will make an appearance, perhaps going into underground and back to dark cults instead of launching open invasions on the Deldrimor Dwarves (who are in way worse situation after turning to stone, actually they have way higher chance to be extinct than the Stone Summit!).

@ Undead at Orr

What you speak is GWEN novelty, but before nothing was really known about those dragons. At that time one could only presume consequences of fatal magic spell which blown the Orr and it's inhabitants. Not much is known about undead bone Dragon in Majesty's Rest as well and even less about the real power of the Sceptre of Orr as well as it's future user (I don't really buy that fairy tale about Livia getting a hang on this). The dragon sleeping in the depths has likely something to do with this, but it's doubtful that such a place wouldn't attract dark cultists and other sorcerers trying to control the undead for their own purpose and learn something of the ancient magic used there, no matter whether the dragon liked that or not.

As for the destroyers, I'm not so sure they were exactly in GWEN what they were meant to be in Utopia.

Huh, as far as I know, we didn't kill the leader of the Charr *or their equal, if they have one, which I doubt*, we didn't kill their last Hierophant, and we didn't completly destroyed the Charr HQ's. The Stone Summit are pwned.

Before GWEN, not much was known. But this is post-GWEN, so much is known. here:
Regarding the Destroyers matter, yeah, me neither.

As a specific race being evil? No.

A choice by the player to be evil or good? Yes.

In the pre-searing quest A Gift for Althea, you are needed to get three gifts to offer as a suggestion to what would be a perfect gift for her. However, you could collect only one, and give it to Althea yourself.
Not the best example of good vs evil, but I like the idea behind the choice.
Help Rurick out finding a good gift (a good alignment?) or rat him out to Althea (evil alignment?) about him delegating her present to some new recruit.

I wish there were more choices like this in GW. An obvious end solution that the quest gives you, but if you were to take the off beat path of "what if I did this instead" you might find a different solution and change the experience and involvement of the quest.
This also is nice to have when playing through the game multiple times as you would have more than one way to play instead of knowing the answer and what to do everytime you get that quest.

For Gw2, make some quests that offer long term consequences for the player for either good or evil. I would too keep in mind that the depth of the consequence be kept in check so there is less likely for QQ, I didnt want my character be like that or have that end result.
For example, in the game Chrono Trigger, at the beginning of the game you go to a festival. Depending on how you either help or don't help, leave alone or take, who you talk to or don't talk to you, will affect an event later on in the story where you are on trial. Your actions and choices affect whether you are found guilty or not guilty. The end result is not game ending nor does it ruin the ability for the character to miss out on something else in the game. It just changes how the story plays out.

The problem with all those multiple solutions is that they take as much time to develop as x other quests, where x is the number of possible solutions.

It just drains away development time, of cause it adds replay value, BUT the time you gain by playing in new ways was lost to your first character.
In the extreme, that might halve the time of your first playthrough in favor of later ones.

Plus false choices may make things worse. Whats the use of being allowed to be an antisocial asshole in every sidequest when the game forces your character to be the goody good guy to progress through the main storyline. That just causes more QQ.

good is only a state of thought for yourself evil is the same thing things that are evil to you might be good to other so more like good vs evilvsgoodvsevil over and over

I don't know whether its probable or good for GW2, but this is exactly what The Old Republic is doing. Light/Dark side meter, with multiple very different solutions to instanced quests. So the idea is perfectly conceivable.

What we know of GW so far suggested that the various once-hostile races (such as charr) are forced to band together with everyone else to defeat the dragons. And it's already been established that casual PvP will be divided by server vs server, not faction vs faction. The latter always has side-balancing problems so I'm glad they are taking this approach.

I hate brain dead games with good vs evil factions.

Nothing is good, as well as nothing is evil just so... I like factions driven by different interests not just some mindless evil orcs against the good fancy pretty elfs... just because.

And I want more than 2 factions as well.

Actually that is the thing about Warhammer, the destruction side are definitely the classic "Evil", however, the Order side are not "Good", misguided, but thats why they are Order and not Good

Yeah in warhammer it's "the lesser evil" also like in The Witcher

good vs evil would be a bad idea imo because it'd be annoying to only be able to group with people of similar race. gw already has class discrimination, gw2 does not need race discrimination.

also, i hope the races don't get anything special but looks and pve storyline... otherwise my character select screen will probably end up lookin like this: human necro, charr necro, asuran necro, norn necro, sylvari necro....

Totally with you on that one.

I really don't see there being a good v evil thing playing out in GW2. That's the sort of element that probably crops up in most MMOs to get around the fact that there isn't always that much by way of story. In playing WoW, I quickly picked up that the endgame is basically 'raiding other faction's towns' - the dev's have already said that servers will be more like our current districts, in that you can port between them (though, of course, there's no knowing yet whether they changed their mind about that).

GW manages to have quite a few forms of PvP now, even without factoring in Alliance battles. Assuming that GW2 is a sort of 'GW, only better' (which is why they were doing it, so we might as well hope that it is), I can see it being more likely that they'll offer PvP in a similar manner - a Battle Islands equivalent, which means introducing PvP arenas just as before.

Arenas end up being totally separate from the storyline, which means that there is no need for a Good vs Evil idea to facilitate them. And as has been pointed out, splitting the player base like that works out rather permanent. Even if big games such as WoW can get away with that because they have huge numbers of people playing all the time, ANet hasn't reached that league - they're not going to want GW2 to end up like GW is now in a hurry.

Gotta love racist Elves.

There is no good vs evil in the playable races. The world isn't in black and white.

True, the humans and charr hate each other, but it isn't good vs evil. It would be more accurate to say good & anti-heroes & 3 neutrals vs evil (which would be whatever threats along with the Ancient Dragons).

Well, the heading might have said good and evil, but what i meant by that really, was just two opposite factions fighting eachother, like good and evil

GW2 is going to be a good vs. evil relation. There might be conflicts between some factions like Human vs. Charr. But the real foes have already been announced:
Great demonic dragon's with demonic armies that terrorise the world. Makes sense that the Charr and the Humans would set aside their differences to fight a being that can possibly destroy the world XD

So I wonder what alliances are going to be based on...

Two things:

1.) I don't agree that the humans in GW are good by any means.
They are all bastards, bathing in self-rightiousness, while slaughtering everyone who does not support them right away and without any regards for the former inhabitants of the lands they invade.
Plus they are sore losers too, anyone remember Orr going kami kaze because of the wannabe lich?

2.) The dragons are not out to destroy THE WORLD.
They are out to destroy the other living beeings, difference.

Thats like you moaning the lawn, your sick idea of a nice environment.
Who cares about the plant & bug genocide anyway?
Yes, I am talking to you garden nazis out there!

They seem more like Joko, though they don't seems to share his ideas of ruling as a king living in luxury and ruling over wealthy nations inmidst a garden with living and death armies at his disposal. And hey, maybe "the gods" stole their power back in the day.

Given that there are 5 known playable races, and knowing what decisions the designers have previously made in GW1, here are my thoughts on one possible game approach.

Each starting race will have two allied races and two opposed races. If you imagine 5 points on a star, the two points nearest to you will be your ally races, and the two opposite side points will be your foe races. Here is how it could work:

-- Human --
Allies: Asura & Silvari
Foes: Norn and Charr

Made up reasons why: Humans partnership with Asura and opposition to Charr well established in GW1. Silvari befriends humans upon their creation due to humans role in preventing their creation from being stamped out. Norn break away from humans over time and consider them too "weak" a race.

-- Asura --
Allies: Human and Charr
Foes: Norn and Silvari

Asura and Human partnership already established. Asura and Charr form grudging alliance based on their mutual respect for technology.

Asura consider Norn anti-intellectual bullies. Asura and Silvari have no common ground due to Asuran's emphasis on technology and Silvari's emphasis on nature. Although they could be friends, early misunderstanding during Silvari's emergence poisons their relationship.

-- Charr --
Allies: Asura and Norn
Foes: Silvari and Humans

Charr and Norn develop mutual respect of their common warlike nature. The Charr share technology development with Asura.

Charr see humans and Silvari as weak prey.

-- Norn --
Allies: Silvari and Charr
Foes: Human and Asura

The Norn share love of nature with Silvari and love of battle with Charr. Territorial misunderstandings with humans have erased historical alliances. Norns see Asurans as elitist jerks who don't do their own fighting directly and don't properly revere the natural world.

-- Silvari --
Allies: Norn and Humans
Foes: Charr and Asura

Humans helped the emergence of Silvari and they are strong allies. Silvari and Norn share a reverence for the natural world. Silvari see Charr as despoilers of the earth and the Asuran technological obsession is not understood or appreciated by the Silvari.

The early part of the game will lead you to common quests with your allies and forays into "enemy" territory. For instance, humans will have their own quest chains, but will also be able to share in the designated Asuran and Silvari quests.

However, during the latter stages of the game, the quarreling races must unite to oppose a recognized common threat. Each race will have quest chains that will enable them to get over their disagreements with their "natural" foes, and end game dungeons can combine players of all races. Of course, this also applies to realm vs. realm PVP.

One nice thing about doing it this way is that any person can group with 60% of the players (versus only 1/2 for the standard two-sided arrangement), but there are still plenty of opportunities for in-the-world PVP encounters.

Actually, we did so at least once (Hierophant Burntsoul), possibly twice (Bonfaaz Burntfur). However, the Charr still had a sustainable population, while all evidence suggests that the Stone Summit population has been pretty close to being wiped out (and it's possible that the ritual of attunement with the Great Dwarf caught up with any survivors eventually). While the White Mantle could survive by recruiting disaffected Krytans to their side, the Stone Summit don't have a population base to recruit from. I would be very surprised if they survive to GW2.

WARNING! Diversion ahead!
There was an official word a little over a decade ago that the theme was civilisation and progress versus destruction and anarchy rather than good versus evil. That said, few realistic worlds do have any entire nations of good - instead they have nations that on the whole behave like civilised nations in our own world, and can produce good people as well as evil.

It annoys me when people say there are no good guys in Warhammer. While, as explained above, there is no 'race of white hats', I'd certainly rather have Ulthuan or the Empire or Karaz Ankor as a neighbour than a bunch of blood-crazed maniacs. This makes them the good guys in comparison, just like in World War 2 the US and Britain were good guys in comparison to who they were fighting (some of the things both nations have got up to are as bad as anything any Order race in Warhammer has done, while I doubt any country on Earth has plumbed the depths of evil that Skaven or Naggarothi society holds up as an ideal).

To quote Line [Protection Henchman] in Asura GWEN outposts
"Every time I get used to the fact that humans are in charge of everything, we come across some other creatures that think they're in the running. We usually blow them up."


So... yeah, I don't expect that attitude to go away anytime soon.

I used to work for Games Workshop, I used to sell Warhammer fantasy and 40K

Its quite cut and dry in Fantasy, the bad guys are evil and want to kill everyone else, the good guys want to survive, but the good guys are dodgy too and so easily can fall to the "Dark Side", especially thosethat use any form of magic, as all magic comes from the Warp, the realm of chaos and the stuff that makes chaos

However its easier to see the good from the bad in 40k, and theres only one "Good" race now, the Tau are the youngest race, they have no psykers and no use of the Warp, they also use Star trek style warp engines and have no touch with the warp and so are not corruptible in the same way, however the "Greater Good" can be corrupted by good rhetoric and used against them, but hey, thats the way of the real world too

the point is, Good and Evil are different for everyone, and far too black and white for everyone to agree on unless in a game the devs say, "These are the good guys, these are the bad guys" and as WoW has shown, most players prefer to play Horde anyway for that sense of getting away with things they couldn't do in the real world

It doesn't make any sense, to be honest. I think you have mixed up an alliance with simple peace, trade and intellectual exchange agreement for mutual benefit.

Also, the Asuran are the least race to ally anybody, given their nature. They either are neutral to someone, at war with or enslaved by (and the latter won't happen until a race more intelligent and advanced then Asuras wages successful war on them). The Charr are not very likely to enter a solid alliance either, besides periodic alliances to achieve a common goal. Similar for Norn, they don't need allies nor seek them, unless in great danger such as Destroyers or Dragons. Humans in fact shouldn't be represented as a 'race' but as a bunch of many different nations, with many different traditions, goals and diplomatic standings with other nations as well as races as a whole. I can pretty much imagine survived Ascalonians from the North fighting with Krytans all over again, or better yet - next Guild Wars. Same for corsairs from Elona raiding Canthan and Tyrian shores or Istan going into war with Kourna or Vabbi for whatever the reason. For the same reason Sylvari might consider Shining Blade members as friends and allies, but any other trespassing human as hostile in their territory. I can imagine for instance Asura at peace with everyone but Sylvari, Norn at war with the Charr and resentful towards Ascalonians in a ceasefire, Charr fighting both Humans and Norn at the same time and small and bigger wars between human nations, or even clan feuds in Norn and Charr society. If anything, I suspect further decentralisation of power, more, more and more conflicts around and at the same time awakened evil getting stronger and stronger, when everyone is absorbed with fighting the neighbours, possibly plotting another plan to take over the Tyria (as entire world, not continent) in old Prophecies fashion, where it's not really exact who and why is behind the currently happening events. I could go as far as to evil adversaries inciting wars between the Great Races.

Horde is not (necessarily) evil, though!

Undead aren't evil, they are just cursed with unlife.

Tauren certainly aren't evil.

Even Orcs and Trolls are good now in WarCraft.

The only race that could be considered evil is the Blood Elves, but I admit I get lost in all the "rebels" vs "hardcore" Blood Elves lore, and which ones we are supposed to be playing.

Exactly, they aren't evil, as has been shown in this thread, but people see them as evil and see them as the bad side that they can play to play the bad guys and do those things that are morally wrong, like ganking, etc

but the same goes for the dark elves and Orcs & Goblins of Warhammer, hell, the Orcs and Gobbos, if corralled and taught could be useful

Well, here we get into the difference between "players" and their "characters."

There are Paladins who go around killing low level players on PvP servers too, they are not being very "Paladiny".

So while I'm sure there will be much name-calling and such in Charr vs Human PvP areas, in the end, I doubt this has much to do with players "being in character" and more to do with people just having an excuse to act like an ass.

(which I guess is your point, except I don't think it's limited to the "evil" side)

no your right its not limited to the "evil" side, but even good can be jackasses sometimes

There are different plot lines to make a race or even a specific line of a race to be good or evil.

Gadd for sure is one evil mofo Asura. He got some wicked teeth, reminds me of a Gremlin. And he just used people for his own gain.

The Charr can definitely be evil, with the right plot.

The same for humans.

And do not think the Norn are just Friendly Jotuns, in EotN they are virtually the biggest creatures, so nothing can intimidate them, especially when they think an army is made up of 4-5 Norn. In GW2 there will be DRAGONS! Wooohoo!!

They should add Dwarves to the playable races list. They can be some evil buggers.

And don't forget, maybe the Asura and Norn gets their freak on over some Ale, and then ... Whoa, the evil little / big SoB that comes out of that mix... *shivers*