BTW neonwire there is no reason to cop an attitude and get all upset at other posters just because your idea's condradict each other. I know EQ2 has its issues, I am not a fanboi of it and Im not even here really defending EQ2 so much. But you really have to make up your mind wtf you want, you want to pvp and kill people or do you want to be completely seperated and never have to see them at all? If you want to PVP then there are plenty of choices out there, in this game and others have suggested other games as well. If you want to PVE without having to deal with people who choose different character types than you, you can play Oblivion. Im sure you could roleplay in that game just fine about hating trolls and orcs and crap, without ever having to deal with one in any way and have them ruin your roleplay. You're just going to have to pick one and decide for yourself what you want to do. If all you need for your fix is RVR take others advice and go buy those games.

I love that you can betray. also, play on a pvp server if it bothers you this much : p pvp servers are more fun anyway

Originally posted by SaibotKang

By the way EQ2 doesnt really deviate from its story at all. The story is that the gods got all pissy with the world and left and then bad things happend and fireballs fell from the sky and earthquakes tore everyones shit up and they were really scared. Then random people start showing up in the world to be adventures and they chose either to side for freeport or qeynos and go around the wrold leveling up and doing quests. The world is too traumitized for them to much worry about going to direct war with the other city and theres better things to worry about anyways. Such as at regular intervals a new area of the destroyed world is unlocked for them to explore and stuff. That is the story in EQ2 more or less, the devs stick to it pretty well imo.

 This

Originally posted by Peregrine2

Personally I believe this comes from two things - the "war" in the EQ2 world was always considered more of a cold war, competing cities with different ideas taking different paths to success, and was never an out an out war. There never was an idea that this was the kind of hot war between the factions as in WoW for example.  Also, with being able to betray between factions as the designers intended, the sort of rigid faction structure you seem to want could never happen.

 

I'd say really your only options for making it like this are playing on the PVP server, or just roleplaying that you won't group with the other side. It definitely limits your grouping options though.

I like this analogy.  As a veteran of the Cold War it's fitting in many ways.

First and foremost it points out how utterly ridiculous the whole "good and evil" thing is.  Both sides in the Cold War thought and preached that the other was "evil".  I spent some time drinking and griping with members of the other side.  I never regarded them as evil.  It is also interesting how the dynamic between the opposing sides created a seemingly more stable world. 

Suffice to say that "good and evil" generalizations are immature and ignorant.  The mechanic is even sillier than the "tank-healer-dps" crap.  And then, as the OP states, EQ2 ignores the mechanic totally, until my Freeport berserker tries to enter Qeynos...

Originally posted by Hluill

Originally posted by Peregrine2

Personally I believe this comes from two things - the "war" in the EQ2 world was always considered more of a cold war, competing cities with different ideas taking different paths to success, and was never an out an out war. There never was an idea that this was the kind of hot war between the factions as in WoW for example.  Also, with being able to betray between factions as the designers intended, the sort of rigid faction structure you seem to want could never happen.

 

I'd say really your only options for making it like this are playing on the PVP server, or just roleplaying that you won't group with the other side. It definitely limits your grouping options though.

 

I like this analogy.  As a veteran of the Cold War it's fitting in many ways.

First and foremost it points out how utterly ridiculous the whole "good and evil" thing is.  Both sides in the Cold War thought and preached that the other was "evil".  I spent some time drinking and griping with members of the other side.  I never regarded them as evil.  It is also interesting how the dynamic between the opposing sides created a seemingly more stable world. 

Suffice to say that "good and evil" generalizations are immature and ignorant.  The mechanic is even sillier than the "tank-healer-dps" crap.  And then, as the OP states, EQ2 ignores the mechanic totally, until my Freeport berserker tries to enter Qeynos...

Well, first of all, many cultures have some sort of "good vs evil" dynamic that is embedded in their culture.

Secondly, it's not immature or ignorant but it drives to the core of humany's desires.

What can be interesting is if either side is made to be evil to the other side but that within their own side their values and culture make them the good guy.

Because quite frankly that is interesting.

An interesting villain is not one that is just "bad bad bad" . An interesting villain is one that can inspire some respect and awe and even sympathy.

Same with hero. A hero that has flaws can be infinitely more interesting while still be "good".

It's a dynamic that can be explored for a rich experience.

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Hluill

Originally posted by Peregrine2

Personally I believe this comes from two things - the "war" in the EQ2 world was always considered more of a cold war, competing cities with different ideas taking different paths to success, and was never an out an out war. There never was an idea that this was the kind of hot war between the factions as in WoW for example.  Also, with being able to betray between factions as the designers intended, the sort of rigid faction structure you seem to want could never happen.

 

I'd say really your only options for making it like this are playing on the PVP server, or just roleplaying that you won't group with the other side. It definitely limits your grouping options though.

 

I like this analogy.  As a veteran of the Cold War it's fitting in many ways.

First and foremost it points out how utterly ridiculous the whole "good and evil" thing is.  Both sides in the Cold War thought and preached that the other was "evil".  I spent some time drinking and griping with members of the other side.  I never regarded them as evil.  It is also interesting how the dynamic between the opposing sides created a seemingly more stable world. 

Suffice to say that "good and evil" generalizations are immature and ignorant.  The mechanic is even sillier than the "tank-healer-dps" crap.  And then, as the OP states, EQ2 ignores the mechanic totally, until my Freeport berserker tries to enter Qeynos...

Well, first of all, many cultures have some sort of "good vs evil" dynamic that is embedded in their culture.

Secondly, it's not immature or ignorant but it drives to the core of humany's desires.

What can be interesting is if either side is made to be evil to the other side but that within their own side their values and culture make them the good guy.

Because quite frankly that is interesting.

An interesting villain is not one that is just "bad bad bad" . An interesting villain is one that can inspire some respect and awe and even sympathy.

Same with hero. A hero that has flaws can be infinitely more interesting while still be "good".

It's a dynamic that can be explored for a rich experience.

 Just because most cultures have the "good and evil" dynamic doesn't mean that it is any less immature or ignorant.  This dynamic has led to most, dare I say all, of the atrocities of our collective History.   Defining things in terms of good and evil breeds intolerance and cruelty and exploitive behavior.

In terms of EQ2, both cities should be claiming, and thus labeled as the "good city".  Is either's approach any less valid than the other?  Is either better?  While I have no issue with having opposing factions in a game, why does EQ2 let itself get so bogged down with labels? 

Originally posted by Hluill

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Hluill

Originally posted by Peregrine2

Personally I believe this comes from two things - the "war" in the EQ2 world was always considered more of a cold war, competing cities with different ideas taking different paths to success, and was never an out an out war. There never was an idea that this was the kind of hot war between the factions as in WoW for example.  Also, with being able to betray between factions as the designers intended, the sort of rigid faction structure you seem to want could never happen.

 

I'd say really your only options for making it like this are playing on the PVP server, or just roleplaying that you won't group with the other side. It definitely limits your grouping options though.

 

I like this analogy.  As a veteran of the Cold War it's fitting in many ways.

First and foremost it points out how utterly ridiculous the whole "good and evil" thing is.  Both sides in the Cold War thought and preached that the other was "evil".  I spent some time drinking and griping with members of the other side.  I never regarded them as evil.  It is also interesting how the dynamic between the opposing sides created a seemingly more stable world. 

Suffice to say that "good and evil" generalizations are immature and ignorant.  The mechanic is even sillier than the "tank-healer-dps" crap.  And then, as the OP states, EQ2 ignores the mechanic totally, until my Freeport berserker tries to enter Qeynos...

Well, first of all, many cultures have some sort of "good vs evil" dynamic that is embedded in their culture.

Secondly, it's not immature or ignorant but it drives to the core of humany's desires.

What can be interesting is if either side is made to be evil to the other side but that within their own side their values and culture make them the good guy.

Because quite frankly that is interesting.

An interesting villain is not one that is just "bad bad bad" . An interesting villain is one that can inspire some respect and awe and even sympathy.

Same with hero. A hero that has flaws can be infinitely more interesting while still be "good".

It's a dynamic that can be explored for a rich experience.

 Just because most cultures have the "good and evil" dynamic doesn't mean that it is any less immature or ignorant.  This dynamic has led to most, dare I say all, of the atrocities of our collective History.   Defining things in terms of good and evil breeds intolerance and cruelty and exploitive behavior.

In terms of EQ2, both cities should be claiming, and thus labeled as the "good city".  Is either's approach any less valid than the other?  Is either better?  While I have no issue with having opposing factions in a game, why does EQ2 let itself get so bogged down with labels? 

Well said! Couldn't have put it any better.

I agree with the OP. In my opinion I wholeheartedly cannot stand the watered down good vs. evil crap. Sure its easier to find groups and thats fine and I even agree with betraying, but I would like to see it something that people really don't want to do, or so insanely hard to do that a rare few do it.

Perhaps there shouldn't be a good vs. evil and WOW nails this one down pretty well. Alliance think they are good, and Horde think they are good as well. Just two different cultures at war.

What grind my gears mostly about EQ2 above and beyond the homogenization of races is the fact that the racials are so shitty and lackluster that it really is just an aesthetic choice. YES I want to be a special flower. :)

Edit - I hope in EQnext the devs really put more thought behind this. EQ's IP is amazing and I really don't want another EQ2. EQ1 definately.