Skip to main content

Those People Over There

I sit in Faction Warfare space and watch the militias heckle each other. In between a neutral may comment. I read posts and listen to discussions as people yell insults at each other in local. I've watched gankers and miners exchange in high sec. The word propaganda has gained a sour taste for me due to the wars of information waged in null sec.

I wonder if I am odd in that I do not find anyone to be my enemy. I do not love everyone. Oh no. I am not some creature of pure and sweet cored soul. I dislike my fare share of people in Eve but I have never felt that they were my enemy. I have never had the desire to go and 'get' them or in some way make their life hard.

One of the most interesting things that I read early in my time in Eve was a post by Susan Black that I am to lazy to find in which she liked the walls that Faction Warfare gave the game. There was a bit of a reason to do the things you do. At that time I examined myself and discovered that I enjoyed doing things for the simple pleasure of doing them. My PvP was without goals and without negativity. Over time, I've never developed an 'us vs them' feeling about any group in the game.

A lot of this I blame on my non-competitive nature. I'm reminded of my personality test in What Kind of D&D Character are You? I share that link so that you will find yourself sucked into the test. But also, because it was interesting that I managed to not match anyone in the corporation at the time in race, skills, or alignment. I really do fit much of the definition which I found interesting.

Why don't I hate anyone? It sounds like a silly question. Someone will chant, "Can't we all just get along?" in the background. But, as I watch groups in Eve clash with each other I often wonder why I don't feel that particular draw. It is not that I think everyone loves me. Some people hate me. Some hate my corporation. I'm okay with being caught in that conflict but I don't share any distaste back. In fact, I can often emphasis with their dislike of me. After all, I did kill them or inconvenience them or my corporation did move into their territory or take their asset. The distaste is understood. I just don't share it.

To say, "I don't care," is to lackadaisical. I do care. I'm quite serious about my game. Nor do I think people are automatically my friends. I just don't have any problem with 'them'.

The D and D website over there has Ten True Neutral Commandments.
A list of Ten Commandments for a true neutral religion may look like this:
1.You shall avoid lies.
2.You shall not kill the innocent.
3.You shall not murder.
4.You shall help the needy if such action aids yourself.
5.You shall honor those who honor you.
6.You shall follow the law unless breaking the law can advance you without harming others.
7.You shall not betray others unless your life is in jeopardy.
8.You shall aid those who aid you and harm those who harm you.
9.You shall not promote an extreme viewpoint.
10.You shall advance yourself without harming others.
It seems that I am a D&D character stuck in the wrong game. I also think that I am not the norm in this particular aspect of my personality.


  1. Mine said Lawful Neutral Cleric but the statistic scores fit better for a wizard...(which was second place for class) So odd... I usually played monks in my d&d group back in high school...

  2. "I have never had the desire to go and 'get' them or in some way make their life hard."

    Unfortunately this is a recognised gameplay and enjoyed by many.

  3. Apparently I'm neutral good. No wonder I get picked on for refunding newbies the cost of their ship when we kill them in a wormhole...

  4. With apologies, I didn’t take the test. Despite my best efforts, I quickly found myself arguing with the test itself. The questions are too black and white, too regimented, too strict. Similarly I can’t take Meyers-Briggs tests for much the same reason. All too often, when confronted with a ‘which is better, A or B’ choice I’m compelled to reply, “Depends on the circumstances.” On top of that, as the personality test proceeds I become aware of the pigeonholing the test is trying to do meaning, intentional or not, I end up gaming the test by shaping my answers to guarantee the personality I want at test end. I can’t, so to speak, just suspend disbelief and take the test. When it comes to personality tests, I’m meta from the get do. It occasionally proves to be a handicap.

    That said, I played a lot of D&D and it became apparent what alignment delighted me most: Lawful Evil. Importantly, I played D&D then and other games now mostly for escape from the mundane expectations, limits, and trials of real life. Being lawful, my party knew I was trustworthy. I kept my agreements. If declared to the party (and I usually did), “Look, you’re my people. What ever our differences, I’m on your side,” they knew that come what may, I always had their back. At the same time, being evil, if you weren’t one of my people, I didn’t give squat damn about your concerns. I’d just a soon murder you as look at you and often did if murder suited my purposes (including mere momentary pleasure). I can’t speak for others, but I play Eve much the same way. If DireNecessity had an alignment, she’d be Lawful Evil.

    Why bring all this up? Because as I play Eve, all that work hating others seems so much unnecessary bother. I don’t need an, “Oh yah! Well you suck more! I hate, hate, hate you!” excuse to do what I want to my victim. Not being one of my people, my victim’s state, status or relationship to me is of no concern. My victims stand before me as mere problems to be solved.

    Such approach has generated some difficulties. I’ve done some things to in game characters that I know have caused the people behind those characters distress. In real life, I don’t get off on that. Accordingly, on more than one occasion, I’ve paused to reflect on whether I remain comfortable playing this game as I do. So far the answer is yes. If others don’t see this game we share as just a game, and a particular harrowing one at that, well, that’s not my problem. I’m unaware if such casual indifference forever remains in my future. Change is the only constant.

  5. Lawful Neutral Human Druid (6th Level)

    and I have no idea what this means...

    I will share this with the office. (queue Evil Laugh)

  6. Neutral Good Human Wizard (4th Level)

    This doesn't really surprise to be honest, as it fits my personality.

    It does also fit my RP style, particularly my efforts with the ILF.

  7. I find that EVE is most fun when you have a goal that extends beyond accumulating ISK or building up your killboard. Having enemies gives me more of a purpose in the game.

    I can end a low-sec roam with little to show for it and that feels like a failure. If I hunt my enemies but don't manage to kill any of them, that can often be a victory of sorts because they avoided me; I stopped them from doing PVE or more generally forced them to adapt to me. Kills that would otherwise be meaningless become significant when they are part of a campaign against an enemy, instead of killing a stranger for the sake of it.

    I am no longer simply filling up my killboard, I am creating a narrative.

  8. Huh... it seems I am a 'True Neutral Human Wizard/Sorcerer (4th/3rd Level)'.

    Like Dire I too used to always get caught up in the whole 'circumstances' thing... but unlike Dire I have learned how to mentally take a step back and look at survey questions like these from a moar general viewpoint.

    In a question like #98. A powerful but corrupt lawyer offers you money if you'll testify against your friend?

    It is not important to the answer if your friend is guilty or innocent.. the question is not about him, It's about would you take the money...? I know I wouldn't... if he was guilty you don't need to pay me to tell the truth, and if he was innocent I you couldn't pay me enough to turn on him. See?

    Seen in this light these surveys can actually be kinda fun... and I was pleased the outcome was in line with my metal self image.

    As for EVE and enemies and friends...I have my sons, blood is far thicker than POD goo... the very few real friends we have made in our time in the black... and all the rest... all of "them"... are "The Other" to me. I neither hate nor love them... they are unknown to me, neither good nor bad, and I prefer it that way TBH.

    1. Question 98 is not terribly problematic for me either since I too can see it's mostly about measuring loyalty. The questions that leave me gobsmacked are ones like 70 - Which do you prefer, Eastern Religion, Western Religion? Sadly I'm not handed the option I genuinely prefer here, neither. Accordingly, when it comes to answering question 70 I'm forced to figure out what it is they're trying to measure (am I a D&D monk, or am I a D&D paladin) and knowing that purpose leads me to molding my answer to achieve a desired result rather than delivering an actual honest reflection on which religion I prefer as I’m simply not given the option to deliver my honest answer.

      Interestingly, I’m inclined to think *how* we approach personality tests can very often tell us as much about a person as the results of the test themselves. Both you and I, it seems, are confronted with befuddling difficulties when we take personality tests and we both end up resolving that difficulty with good faith responses. Yours appears to be taking the test all the while carefully finding ways to interpret the questions honestly. Mine appears to be refusing to take the test and instead jumping straight to declaring results.

      Extending a little further, I find it illuminating to return to why Sugar brought up the test in the first place. Among other things, it was puzzlement on her part about why hated enemies often seem so crucial to this game we play. An interesting question worthy of exploration. Winnowing into that question via personality test seems excellent way to begin.

    2. I would like to point out that the test does allow you to skip questions if none of the answers fit, it says at the top that it is more accurate if you can fill them all in.

    3. "Sadly I'm not handed the option I genuinely prefer here, neither. Accordingly, when it comes to answering question 70 I'm forced to figure out what it is they're trying to measure (am I a D&D monk, or am I a D&D paladin)"

      (1) nope, did not give you YOUR preferred answer, so? choose the one that you disagree with the least then... of the 2 offered if you HAD to... which would you choose?

      (2) Quit thinking so much... don't figure out what they are after, answer the damn question and find out after.

      It is not your HONEST answer they want... it is what your 'choices' say about you. As you said... you resolve the the difficulty with good faith responses... but your good faith response is to NOT TAKE the test.

      This is a control and safety tactic, whether intentional or not, as the 'results' you are declaring have nothing to do with the actual test you never took and have everything to do with your having complete control over the results.

      While I was pleasantly surprised with my results matching so closely with my self image... I took the test eager to see if I might find out some thing I did not already feel or believe about myself.

    4. Oh good lord Tur,

      Impugning my comments as nothing but control freak generated safety tactics really destroys conversation. It's kinda sad because usually your heart's in the right place yet for reasons I don't clearly understand you occasionally up and nut kick people out of nowhere (alcohol perhaps?).

      Still, I'm willing to give the test a go and following your direction I try to not think too much (though I hope you realize that's pretty much tantamount to me not being me). Fortunately this test isn't timed which allows me to hone in on an answer via elimination as you suggest. The last time I took a Meyers-Briggs personality test I was obligated to answer quickly, quickly, quickly which exasperated me to no end because quick, quick, quick isn't me.

      Lawful Neutral Human Wizard (6th Level)

      I haven't the foggiest idea what 6th Level is supposed to mean. Wizard was well nigh guaranteed as I'm a comparatively elderly intellectual man of slight build. I suppose human popped up because in D&D it's the standard on which other races vary from and I'm a pretty standard fellow. Lawful Neutral puzzles me a bit as I think Neutral Good would better describes real life me.

  9. Neutral Good Human Druid lvl 7th... my favorite class and my usual alignment. The multiverse is right :)

  10. True Neutral Human Ranger (7th Level) ? I guess, thats something like a cross between a hunter and a Paladin. Oh wait, those were my main 'toons in WoW.

  11. True Neutral Human Monk/Sorcerer (2nd/2nd Level)

    Which I think is different from the last time I clicked through it, but I can't remember :P

  12. True Neutral Human Wizard (7th Level). And an exceptional backseat driver.


  13. I took the test over coffee this morning. True Neutral Human Wizard (7th Level).

    I wasn't going to, but while reading the comments, I was struck by the notion that almost all readers of this blog (those who comment, anyway...) seem to share the "true" or "good" qualities. I assume that a certain kind of person would find Sugar's perspective interesting enough to make reading here a daily pursuit. Once I got there, I decided to find out whether I would turn out to be some sort of outlier. Apparently not.

    Although the flaws in the test are obvious, since any test that accurately gauged me would have revealed that I was a true irascible opinionated codger.

    1. That's True Irascible Opinionated Codger (7th Level)...
      I know for I are one too... =]

  14. So I am...

    Chaotic Neutral Human Wizard (4th Level)

    What's interesting is that I got as much score for Chaotic Neutral (19) as for Chaotic Good (19). Only 1 point for Evil, 10 for Good, 10 for Neutral. Heh. Not surprising.

  15. Surprisingly good test! I came out as a Neutral Good Wizard/Rogue. Nice balance between studious and opportunist, with a basic desire to help people along, but being practical about it.

    Although looking at my stats, I don't think I'd make a good Rogue and only a decent Wizard. If one of my players handed me this sheet I'd applaud them for playing DnD on hard mode.

  16. Great test came out as a True Neutral Human Paladin. First character in the old boxed set was a LG Human Paladin, so it is interesting to see the change over the last 30+ years. Thank you


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maybe one day!

 [15:32:10] Trig Vaulter > Sugar Kyle Nice bio - so carebear sweet - oh you have a 50m ISK bounty - so someday more grizzly  [15:32:38 ] Sugar Kyle > /emote raises an eyebrow to Trig  [15:32:40 ] Sugar Kyle > okay :)  [15:32:52 ] Sugar Kyle > maybe one day I will try PvP out When I logged in one of the first things I did was answer a question in Eve Uni Public Help. It was a random question that I knew the answer of. I have 'Sugar' as a keyword so it highlights green and catches my attention. This made me chuckle. Maybe I'll have to go and see what it is like to shoot a ship one day? I could not help but smile. Basi suggested that I put my Titan killmail in my bio and assert my badassery. I figure, naw. It was a roll of the dice that landed me that kill mail. It doesn't define me as a person. Bios are interesting. The idea of a biography is a way to personalize your account. You can learn a lot about a person by what they choose to put in their bio

Taboo Questions

Let us talk contentious things. What about high sec? When will CCP pay attention to high sec and those that cannot spend their time in dangerous space?  This is somewhat how the day started, sparked by a question from an anonymous poster. Speaking about high sec, in general, is one of the hardest things to do. The amount of emotion wrapped around the topic is staggering. There are people who want to stay in high sec and nothing will make them leave. There are people who want no one to stay in high sec and wish to cripple everything about it. There are people in between, but the two extremes are large and emotional in discussion. My belief is simple. If a player wishes to live in high sec, I do not believe that anything will make them leave that is not their own curiosity. I do not believe that we can beat people out of high sec or destroy it until they go to other areas of space. Sometimes, I think we forget that every player has the option to not log back in. We want them to log


Halycon said it quite well in a comment he left about the skill point trading proposal for skill point changes. He is conflicted in many different ways. So am I. Somedays, I don't want to be open minded. I do not want to see other points of view. I want to not like things and not feel good about them and it be okay. That is something that is denied me for now. I've stated my opinion about the first round of proposals to trade skills. I don't like them. That isn't good enough. I have to answer why. Others do not like it as well. I cannot escape over to their side and be unhappy with them. I am dragged away and challenged about my distaste.  Some of the people I like most think the change is good. Other's think it has little meaning. They want to know why I don't like it. When this was proposed at the CSM summit, I swiveled my chair and asked if they realized that they were undoing the basic structure that characters and game progression worked under. They said th