Alignment settings and Balance,

[Reallylongunneededplayername]

I'm going to hit that,

-Please take in mind this is my observation and thoughts and you are free to have your own- (and a few things I said before)

We as community and as creators, Dev's have created a wall, A wall with holes though, Between good and evil where neutral is hardly visible as they sooner to side with good than with evil.

We made evil reside at one side of a wall, The underdark, Would evil be called out on the surface, Life will quickly be impossible and they eighter cease to play, Seek redemption or ..Join the underdark.

It takes a special kind of roleplay and creativity to play Surface evil, Often set in the LE type. I recommend Tyros in this matter who has been on the KoS side of the spectrum for a long time and worked himself towards a place where he is accepted.
That said the banites had some higher up aid as the NPC non-wife of the Cordorian king is a banite.

Other non faction evil surface dwellers often find the swift end of blade or spell in PvP and due to connection or class choice often branded directly as one who must die on sight.

We should work to keep surface races out of the underdark, Yes, Humans can fit there but it does in my opinion not further the health of the server.

I think we should serious think about putting slave and outcast behind a greater reward for outcast and a minor for slave.
(Though I rather see it disapear.)

Pirates should be eighter able to cover up their ink or have an item instead of ink that is equal to the Radiant heart ring.

We should also serious think about rethinking our PVP rules. If a player is not intrested in PVP he should by all time have the ENFORCED BY RULE have the opportunity to surrender, Wich would give the other side the opportunity to arrest the person or Escort the person out or just let the person go peacefully. (Maybe go that grey and let the "evil" bribe you)

This rule would IMPROVE roleplay GREATLY and reduce a lot of ooc anger.

Would the person be a D about this and go "I surrender, Nanana rules, can't touck my evil bunny tail" I'd say kick that bunny tail and It should be send to a DM.

Anyway, I hope Iron and his merry folk of wonderfull DMs take my words with some thought.

[Skarain]

We should also serious think about rethinking our PVP rules. If a player is not intrested in PVP he should by all time have the ENFORCED BY RULE have the opportunity to surrender, Wich would give the other side the opportunity to arrest the person or Escort the person out or just let the person go peacefully. (Maybe go that grey and let the "evil" bribe you)

I am somewhat in a rush so I have only time to touch upon this briefly, but more behavior of being willing to demand surrender and accept surrender, be it an unwritten rule or not would be golden.

I recently witnessed a scene where a character "walked to the wrong place at the wrong time", and was hardly given enough time to roleplay back before being attacked. Their last emote when they were already being hit by was: "Hold on a moment" *raises up hands*. ....before being cut into pieces.

It just left a bad taste in my mouth. Sure, said character was resurrected shortly after, but what if that player had taken the risk and play with MoD?

Death happens too frequently and while I do not encourage anything to change, I would dearly wish people to be less "trigger happy".

Sure, keep out the gun, but don't rush with the shooting.

"Be nice."

[satan]

I'd be happy if everyone just rolllplayed a bit before attacking. I get one line or no line ganked quite a lot these days.

Reporting it has yet to do anything, or get any responses, so I don't even bother anymore.

[Reallylongunneededplayername]

I'd be happy if everyone just rolllplayed a bit before attacking. I get one line or no line ganked quite a lot these days.

Reporting it has yet to do anything, or get any responses, so I don't even bother anymore.

I feel this too, Mostly I feel it is victim blaming, "You shouldn't RP that kind or characted, Cause if you do folk can just harres and PvP the hell out of you without any isue" Wich they do by the way.

[Wrips]

I strongly disagree with all the main premises of the post.

We should work to keep surface races out of the underdark, Yes, Humans can fit there but it does in my opinion not further the health of the server.

I don't see how humans living in Andunor are a detriment to the health of the server. It fits the nature of Andunor as a trade city whose main objective is to fill Claddath and Freth pockets. The numerous human npcs living there also reinforce this notion.

You can't really promote surface evil at the expense of underdark evil. There are other issues that affects how evil is perceived on the surface, which is mainly related at how players actually interpret evil in the server and how this culture developed through the years.

I think we should serious think about putting slave and outcast behind a greater reward for outcast and a minor for slave.
(Though I rather see it disapear.)

Gods, no. Outcasts and slaves fit the setting for the underdark. If there's something cheesy or being abused, let the DMs deal with it. Let players be allowed to play what they want to, as long as the setting of the server is not compromised. I don't want to play on a server where most experiences are gated behind rewards or everything is stiffled and supposed to be pursued in just a few ways.

Pirates should be eighter able to cover up their ink or have an item instead of ink that is equal to the Radiant heart ring.

While I'm neutral about the issues regarding pirate ink, I think the problem with pirate gameplay is that there's little mechanical support for it in the server. It'd be interesting if there were things like trade routes that could be controlled by factions to give (and deny!) revenue to the region. So, if the sea trade routes are controlled by pirates, the settlements would receive a loss of revenue while Sencliff would gain a bonus, for example.

We should also serious think about rethinking our PVP rules. If a player is not intrested in PVP he should by all time have the ENFORCED BY RULE have the opportunity to surrender, Wich would give the other side the opportunity to arrest the person or Escort the person out or just let the person go peacefully. (Maybe go that grey and let the "evil" bribe you)

Gods, no! Faerun is a dangerous place! While I agree there's little incentive to butcher someone who doesn't want to fight, you are actively taking away agency from other players. If certain players don't want to engage in PvP, the onus is on them to avoid situations where they might be susceptible to it- always travel with a lens, memorize a retreat route, carry invisibility potions/wands or, the most extreme measure, avoid places where there's a relatively high probability that it can happen.

This rule would IMPROVE roleplay GREATLY and reduce a lot of ooc anger.

I, honestly, don't see it. The most interesting roleplaying experiences I've had in this server where, one way or another related to PvP that had long lasting consequences to the storyline of various characters. If rules had been broken or you think that people didn't interact enough with you, report it. A lot of OOC anger related to PvP also has to do with the fact many people don't take a defeat well and want to add it to their storyline.

I agree, however, that the 24-hour cooldown from PvP could likely be increased in order to avoid meaningless 'every-24 hour PvP gank squads' that 99% of the time lead to nowhere.

[Shadowy Reality]

I recently witnessed a scene where a character "walked to the wrong place at the wrong time", and was hardly given enough time to roleplay back before being attacked. Their last emote when they were already being hit by was: "Hold on a moment" *raises up hands*. ....before being cut into pieces.

It just left a bad taste in my mouth. Sure, said character was resurrected shortly after, but what if that player had taken the risk and play with MoD?

So much this. I actually had something like this happen to me before, while playing a MoD.
It boiled down to a character telling a paladin that my character was an Infernalist. The Paladin walking up to my PC and saying that exactly. My PC opening her hands and mentioning she had no desire to fight and the Paladin promptly cutting her down, unharmed and not fighting back.

This happened just outside the Cordorian barracks, I was ressurected 30 seconds later for interrogation. Which makes no sense at all. What bothered me the most is that was definitely not the way a Paladin should act, and because it was within the rules of engagement, nothing came of it.

[Bunny]

I would like pvp more if it was a sport rather than a state. Instead of tattoos, pick up an item that makes you hot and the opposing side can engage. On death the item is spent and you are out until the next phase.

Given all the bad actors around paladins, a cursed item or dm assigned deity such that all their powers fail. There is already a basis in code for this with shadow mages.

[Arienette]

Ive been seeing a few comments along these same lines. That there should be less hostility-on-sight between various factions, alignments, races, etc.

I really dont understand it.

When going into the Underdark while playing my pretty recognizable Good-Aligned, do-gooder faction character, the idea of bumping into a drow war band adds to the excitement.

When my Outcast Necromancer disguises himself and snoops around on the surface, the fact that someone could recognize and confront him is part of the appeal.

When my monster-race character goes Sibiyad-orc-hunting at night, the sense you are walking the razor's edge or "getting away with something" is what makes it fun.

Honestly, if i ran into the "other side" in these scenarios and they just sorta tolerated me, id be freaking dissapointed.

If i was a pirate and "normal" characters didn't fear and hate me, I'd feel like a failure.

And in the end, the desire to avoid PvP death is a big part of what drives a sense of tension and excitement.

[Bunny]

Ive been seeing a few comments along these same lines. That there should be less hostility-on-sight between various factions, alignments, races, etc.

I really dont understand it.

When going into the Underdark while playing my pretty recognizable Good-Aligned, do-gooder faction character, the idea of bumping into a drow war band adds to the excitement.

When my Outcast Necromancer disguises himself and snoops around on the surface, the fact that someone could recognize and confront him is part of the appeal.

When my monster-race character goes Sibiyad-orc-hunting at night, the sense you are walking the razor's edge or "getting away with something" is what makes it fun.

Honestly, if i ran into the "other side" in these scenarios and they just sorta tolerated me, id be freaking dissapointed.

If i was a pirate and "normal" characters didn't fear and hate me, I'd feel like a failure.

And in the end, the desire to avoid PvP death is a big part of what drives a sense of tension and excitement.

I know this fun but i also know the “hey you!” Dead scenario. The difference being the latter is usually a mechanics issue in my opinion. I have my paranoia and tactics for sneaking around the other side. Where things get frustrating is when I'm doing normal adventure prep minding my own business and i get run down and pked.

Most people don't enjoy the extremes: open pvp vs exploitable death protections. The middle ground is somewhere between forcing the risk for reward vs the levity of a safe space.

[Halibutthead]

I dont think the observed problem is an issue with server rules. The pvp rules are extremely flexible and i think thats a very good thing.
The issue i think we're seeing is with the players. Yes, i know, we arent supposed to address it that way because "urdoinitwrong." i feel changing the rules would not make things better, but worse in new and exciting ways.
I've been the victim of one-line ganks, from faction animosity to just random high levels trying to show off their epeens to feel stronger than low levels. All of those issues, in my mind, were problems with a player who either didnt care, or actually didnt know how to make the situation fun and dynamic for both parties. (And maybe some missed marks, where they attempted, but things didnt pan out how they planned. That happens, too)
So, rather than restricting people, i wonder if there is a better way to shift the culture towards better pvp?

[Twily]

I second that the way PvP is used could use some changing.

PvP is good, it drives story, adds a lot to the world, and the majority of players use it just fine; but there is a prevalent 'bad crowd'.
These players PvP not for the story or fun of all involved, but because they as players enjoy killing other player's characters.

There's nothing wrong with enjoying PvP, but it's always been my view that these players should go to a PvP server for it. Arelith is a place of creation and story- PvP is going to be a part of that story, but it should be just that. A part of the story, not the story itself.

These one line PvP fights where a player forces PvP spontaneously onto another player(often with a build designed specifically for the type of fighting they're initiating and with full buffs already up while catching the other person unbuffed) do happen, and I think they need to stop. However, This will only happen if we are vigilant in submitting reports on these players.

I have noticed DMs crack down on this behavior in the past, which makes me confident in saying that it's not allowed and that you should report it when you see these cases. If you still see the player around, it doesn't mean they weren't talked to. If they do it again, report them again. Repeat instances of this behavior can and has lead to bans, even in recent time.

EDIT: I will add for clarity, I don't think the rules need changing due to cases like those explained below, which is actually very well done.
I think we just need to report the problematic players more.

[Arienette]

I'll just add one final thing as a concrete example.

Recently my character had a bit of tension with another character. My PC pissed the other PC off somehow.

He kinda stated openly that he would probably kill me someday. A few times after that over a couple IRL weeks, he would pop out of stealth near me at times when i was off-guard, vulnerable, distracted. Say something like "you are going to live to regret crossing me." Or "Im still watching you." And then go into to stealth and dissapear. Never happened when i was buffed up, or with friends. Only alone and unwarded. My character started to get a bit paranoid and going everywhere fully warded, asking others if they had seen the other PC, etc.

It was a great bit of tension. We never did end up fighting. But the fact that his next visit and single line of "Thats it, ive decided this is the day you die" or something, and then attack me was a REAL THREAT. It made the fear and tension real.

The idea that when sailing the sea, murderous pirates could board you is another example.

Just my two cents. Obviously i enjoy a bit of antagonism to help me move my character's story forward. Id rather the rules err on the side of less-restrictive rather than overly-restricted. Which I think is what we have today, and is part of why I like Arelith.

[Huschpfusch]

Rethinking PVP rules or/and even rethinking communication.

Area OOC chat bar
-TIMEOUT
tracing of TIMEOUT on/off to combat potential abuse without relying on player reports.

[Ork]

This is the mark of usually a juvenile roleplayer, and they don't have a grasp on how their character would truly act in the given situation. In addition, I think that while PvP is certainly one outlet this might take - I have also seen players ridiculing others with veiled OOC comments or emotes such as: *She ignores the stupid warlock.*

It's genuinely a juvenile response to conflict. Report these every time.

I will say that these types of responses happen regardless of supposed alignment. I recall countless encounters where players jumped to OOC passive-aggressive emotes or even aggressive tells surrounding conflict. Remember - you can always make even the shittiest PvP a net gain for the server in roleplay.

I am very opposed to removing player agency in conflict. I don't think forcing players to "allow" enemies to surrender, etc. is good policy. Its the mark of a great roleplayer when there are more outcomes than attack, ignore, run.

[Scylon]

Given all the bad actors around paladins, a cursed item or dm assigned deity such that all their powers fail. There is already a basis in code for this with shadow mages.

Sadly, as a newer player I am finding this to be true. The "good" characters seem the most blood thirsty. It bothers me that someone playing a paladin walking up to someone they don't know, on someones accusation alone and just kills them on the spot. I'll be honest I would tell them OOCly that is ridiculous, just walk away after the rez and report the act. That is the mark of an evil character and they should be punished.

In my case as someone who has started a surface evil character I just have to be careful how I play, so basically I can't use my pet when with anyone. Which if fine cause I'm built around being a tank . Oddly, my character best friend is a warrior of Tyr ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Got the old Justice and Punisher duo going on at times. Banter is actually fun.

I think the best plan of "attack" for surface evil is to travel in packs. I know it is hard at times especially cause we all kind of live on the down low, In my case particularly cause I play on Australia times :\ . I had thought about starting some kind of Neutral/Neutral Evil Order as an end game goal to try and unite the surface evil people. Just my own idea to drag a few more evil people up top side.

[Cortex]

IDK, I've played numerous evil surface characters, and rarely ever had issues. The key is to not be obnoxious, provoke others, or shout to the heavens that you praise Graz'zt and sacrifice babies. I know a lot of evil or at least evil leaning characters about that aren't man hunted.

Granted, tag systems that out you as a pirate, an outcast or any other kind of "bad guy" only enables people who look at tags and go "hurrdurr bad man", thus throwing into the trash any kind of RP involving learning of the character, their motives or the acts they perform. Put the tags in the bin.

For a lot of other scenarios, I feel it's YMMV.

[Ork]

Open evil should be a legitimate path. There are great opportunities that can happen around an evil character, but unfortunately that usually devolves into "hurr badman" which is a damn shame. C'mon people. Be more creative in how you approach issues.

[Yma23]

We should also serious think about rethinking our PVP rules. If a player is not intrested in PVP he should by all time have the ENFORCED BY RULE have the opportunity to surrender, Wich would give the other side the opportunity to arrest the person or Escort the person out or just let the person go peacefully. (Maybe go that grey and let the "evil" bribe you)

The thing is - this shouldn't be about whether or not the PLAYER is interested in PvP or not. It's about the character, and what they do.

With that Being Said:

The "good" characters seem the most blood thirsty. It bothers me that someone playing a paladin walking up to someone they don't know, on someones accusation alone and just kills them on the spot

I think one of the problems we do have is that there isn't really a very good subdual system. It's fiddly, means mechanicaly nurfing yourself, and is unreliable. I think that a better subudal system might improve things a bit.

The main argument against it is that it 'trivialises' pvp. But truthfully I'm not sure it'd do that. Rather I think it'd make death more serious.

Let's pull back a bit.

Why is your character dying in PvP a bad thing?
XP loss now is tiny, you get some debuffs but that's not neccesarly a massive deal. Really it's all down to RP, and, even though people should rp death seriously, a lot of people don't, and in cases where the pvp was obviously lame I don't entirely blame them. Certainly I've seen cases where people say, 'IF I don't like that PvP, I refuse to aknolwledge it.'

We could add further consequence to pvp - e.g. MoD life, but I think that would exasperbate the situation rather than help it.

So rather, if just the very rp of death is bothering people, then we should introduce a subdual system, so that the choice to kill is always that. A choice. This would give both sides room to choose something that isn't 'death'. Something that is somewhat mechanically enfroced

[Reallylongunneededplayername]

Open evil should be a legitimate path. There are great opportunities that can happen around an evil character, but unfortunately that usually devolves into "hurr badman" which is a damn shame. C'mon people. Be more creative in how you approach issues.

I can not agree more, And while I personally do not find myself often in that situation and my evil is often saturday morning cartoon evil. I do see what happens to the others and feel empathy towards these people.

It though, improves my RP as I blantantly ignore crime with my character if my toons back is faced towards it, Nor does my character knows to identify pirate ink or can x-ray see them through clothing.

But I can not stop thinking "How can I help improve the server so they can have a good time and not be team goods punch bags?"

IC I have advocated with my pirate that pirates should be held accountable to their actions as all other under the law.
Meaning that one with Ink could have commited crimes but might aswell not, The character has as crime a drawing of an anchor on his arm, leg, butt, forhead.. Wich is silly in my eyes. But alas the idea was IC shut down, Aswell my attempts to teach the history of Sencliff and telling that Sencliff isn't a faction but a place where folk live.

Anyway, Here on the forum I do these things. Anything that comes to mind to improve conditions for those players.

I'm going to be honest about it, My girlfriend is one of those players, She is with us a year now I think?
Her english isn't top notch( Not is mine for that matter), She is as green as it gets when it comes to Roleplay, And she has advanged quite a bit in a year. Though I've seen things happen to her where I sometimes wish I hadn't introduced her to Arelith. And she often gets lost in lore and grey areas of lore and limits and restrictions of fantasy.

But, She isn't the only one, Hells some players are so into this that I go, "Uh, What? ctrl tap google". There are a lot of players that are average that get a bad brush from things like, Not understanding, No help, Eleteism, Players that think the game is about their fun or their fun and that of their group.

I think some players need to embrace the be nice rule more often and such players should have the DM speaking to them and ask "But is it fun for both sides?" /end rant.

[Diegovog]

Obviously i enjoy a bit of antagonism to help me move my character's story forward. Id rather the rules err on the side of less-restrictive rather than overly-restricted. Which I think is what we have today, and is part of why I like Arelith.

I will say that these types of responses happen regardless of supposed alignment. I recall countless encounters where players jumped to OOC passive-aggressive emotes or even aggressive tells surrounding conflict. Remember - you can always make even the shittiest PvP a net gain for the server in roleplay.

I am very opposed to removing player agency in conflict. I don't think forcing players to "allow" enemies to surrender, etc. is good policy. Its the mark of a great roleplayer when there are more outcomes than attack, ignore, run.

The thing is - this shouldn't be about whether or not the PLAYER is interested in PvP or not. It's about the character, and what they do.

I agree with these great statements.

Overly restrictive paths to PvP is really not fun. Does anyone remember when RP servers had extensive rules on how to initiate and conduct pvp?
I remember in some servers you had to hostile the person and wait 30 seconds before attacking, also wait 10 seconds without moving after attacking when leaving stealth, corner sneak wasn't allowed and the list went on on even more annoying stuff.

I can also imagine situations that legit RP would be ruined because the person behind the character isn't willing to handle an unfortunate situation and therefore uses it as a shield against encounters they dislike. For example, Group of characters X walk into enemy territory only to come across a character from enemy group Y, this character who would certainly die sends a tell refusing PvP and is forcefully given free passage to report back to his friends on the situation. Group X is forced to cancel their plans because of OOC decisions from the opposition.

[Anomandaris]

To me the issue is plain and simple not one of mechanics or rules, it's pride. People. Don't. Like. To. Lose. (with few very gracious humble exceptions).

Hence the trigger happy behavior when insulted or wanting to attack first and get the upper hand in combat. If we were a little less afraid of losing and more invested in enriching the experience of everyone around us, this would be less of a problem regardless of the rules or mechanics.

I get it your character may be ruthless, pragmatic and vicious... but still. The great thing though is we can all lead by example. I've seen some really tremendous rp leading up to PVP interactions. I've also seen some really tremendous conflict RP that were the players not masterful, graceful and generous, COULD have gone to PVP but didn't and often the outcome was even better for it.

[Halibutthead]

not to be that guy, jordenk, but welcome to public server video gaming.
we gamers are not known for our grace. sure, there are graceful and humble folk among us, but you'd have to have a lot of willful ignorance to believe that it's a more than a tiny minority.
hell, i don't like to lose, either. it took a decade of competitive MtG playing to learn to be happy for someone when they won. but that's still not the same thing.

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

Hard agree with the sentiment that the rules of PvP are less the problem and more the general twitchy-click-or-die mentality that tends to take hold during such moments that pan out in an unsatisfying way.

A big part of the drama of a combat scene in a D&D (or any other table-top inspired system, really) game is the ability to pause during game-play and narrate the events of the round into a fantastic imaginary cinematic byplay; witty one-liners, heartfelt speeches and attempts to stop someone from doing something whilst fighting for their lives, etc. "I loved you, Anakin! You were my brother!"

The real-time nature of Arelith doesn't allow for this in most circumstances.

Not that I didn't already love casters, but in NWN it's an extra reason to enjoy them; while disable spells have the nice perk of generally securing you a fight by giving you the option to finish exploding something, they're also one of the only methods in the server that enable you to engage in RP during PvP without first killing all opposition on the screen- and more importantly giving them the chance to do so back without worrying that you're going to eat a face-full of crits for going flat-footed while typing.

Edit: Here's a thought- would it be possible for an area specific pause of say, 10 or so seconds between every round, to occur when character vs. character combat occurs? There is an argument that it reduces the manual skill factor, but given that our server accommodates mobile players, I'm not sure that slowing down the pace of PvP combat to allow for more creative writing and/or decision making, and making twitch-fps-skills less relevant, is a bad thing.

[Scylon]

To me the issue is plain and simple not one of mechanics or rules, it's pride. People. Don't. Like. To. Lose. (with few very gracious humble exceptions).

Hence the trigger happy behavior when insulted or wanting to attack first and get the upper hand in combat. If we were a little less afraid of losing and more invested in enriching the experience of everyone around us, this would be less of a problem regardless of the rules or mechanics.

I get it your character may be ruthless, pragmatic and vicious... but still. The great thing though is we can all lead by example. I've seen some really tremendous rp leading up to PVP interactions. I've also seen some really tremendous conflict RP that were the players not masterful, graceful and generous, COULD have gone to PVP but didn't and often the outcome was even better for it.

I watched a paladin of Justice act like they were Judge Dredd and just sentence and kill someone one on spot. The issue isn't specifically Evil characters. It is good more so as per the following example.

It boiled down to a character telling a paladin that my character was an Infernalist.


The Paladin walking up to my PC and saying that exactly. My PC opening her hands and mentioning she had no desire to fight and the Paladin promptly cutting her down, unharmed and not fighting back.

[Blood on my Lips]

Granted, tag systems that out you as a pirate, an outcast or any other kind of "bad guy" only enables people who look at tags and go "hurrdurr bad man", thus throwing into the trash any kind of RP involving learning of the character, their motives or the acts they perform. Put the tags in the bin.

I play an Outcast. I get a lot of "Leave or die." threats. Even in places where I'm allowed to be. I've heard the same from other players. People don't know our supposed crimes. They don't know the character. They read a tag on our description. That's it. That's not good RP and that's not fun on the end of the player of the Outcast/Pirate.

The tags are just an invitation for people that like to pvp to have an excuse to kill. The tags do more harm than good. The tags kill RP and cause anger and frustration.

I remember when the tags were introduced, and what was said, and I think the situation was handled all wrong. The Outcast players hanging out in Cordor or wherever, should have gotten a stern talking to about how they were playing their Outcasts, an RpR rating reduction, an MoD, something other than putting a big scarlet letter on all of us because a few people abused the ability to visit the Surface.