Conflict and the surface.

[AstralUniverse]

The narrative back in the day was something like "we must ally because Cordor and Myon were corrupted by the church of Bane and they are really strong and scary and we gotta do something about it". The times of that particular war, was to me, the last time I've ever had fun on this server because everyone were striding in gray areas. There was no right or wrong, just a bunch of extremists. I loved it and I miss that plot. It was more inclusive than any large server-scale DM event and I felt like it's the last time anything was 'moved and shaken' on the surface.

i am glad you enjoyed it. i had a lot of fun back then too, but i received a LOT of OOC hate for the decisions i made on rick. whole discords existed (in part) to trash talk me. conspiracies were spun. it was a mess, and all because i played a pragmatic character and had an interest in storytelling beyond bashing banites when they were level 12 (which i could have done).

I know all about it mate. For what it's worth I think you should take it all as a big compliment for being able to pull off what you did. *shrugs* haters gonna hate as the ol' saying goes. And it doesnt stand just for you. I think many of the big movers who took ooc crap for it (including me as well tbh and I think you know too) should just let it go. There was A LOT going on. It couldnt be that good without imprefections.

[Ork]

What's concerning is that the treatment zav received isn't exclusive to him. If you're not a zealous adherent to modern morality & the status quo, you're subject to this vitriol. It's toxic & kills off more characters than PvP killbashing.

I can't fathom why anyone would want to be a settlement leader that does things. It's soul sucking & it definitely wasn't always like this.

[Petrifictus]

The narrative back in the day was something like "we must ally because Cordor and Myon were corrupted by the church of Bane and they are really strong and scary and we gotta do something about it". The times of that particular war, was to me, the last time I've ever had fun on this server because everyone were striding in gray areas. There was no right or wrong, just a bunch of extremists. I loved it and I miss that plot. It was more inclusive than any large server-scale DM event and I felt like it's the last time anything was 'moved and shaken' on the surface.

i am glad you enjoyed it. i had a lot of fun back then too, but i received a LOT of OOC hate for the decisions i made on rick. whole discords existed (in part) to trash talk me. conspiracies were spun. it was a mess, and all because i played a pragmatic character and had an interest in storytelling beyond bashing banites when they were level 12 (which i could have done).

I remember the pain as Wotan. Got lot of anger by defending you and got same treatment. There is still some people who dont let it go.

[Security_Blanket]

Speaking as the player of a Banite character that's more interested in story-driven conflict than PvP-driven conflict. I've played a lot in the past months, but I'm still semi-new to the server. The biggest roadblocks that I've hit as a Banite had nothing to do with anything that my character did. It didn't even have anything to do with any of the current Banites my character associated with. There was this stigma associated with the Banite brand that has proven impossible to shake. At least for some more than others, and you can bet those few that are willing to talk to us receive an earful for it.

I can understand characters having issues towards Banites given the history, to those still alive to remember. To me, that does add to the immersion of it. Banites seek to spread the Word of Bane, and the fear of Bane. You can take that in many directions, the past Banites managed to spread the fear of Bane and now folks are taking a hard stance on preventing that happening ever again. It does make sense, but then how many of those characters are alive today on either side? It's strange to me that one group, simply for being Banites, will attract a group of fully-warded veterans to stomp them out if they don't leave.

Ultimately, to me, this is a failure to commit to the setting. This is a fantasy world, no black and white but shades of grey. A paladin can be corrupted, a blackguard can learn the err in their ways. Let's not forget that the act of killing someone is traumatizing, don't let it become your go-to for dealing with evil. Otherwise, I think you're playing an evil character disguised as good. Conflict is essential to a story, and not everyone drives conflict in the same way.

[Nekonecro]

This is cynical, but I don't think mechanical changes can fix what I believe is a cultural problem.

The surface is home to a large bloc of social roleplayers who aren't interested in meaningful conflict and just want to play out domestic drama. They are at home in unimpeachable institutions or in small settlements that can be secured against interlopers. While they suck at PvP or meta-conflict strategizing in general, they wield a lot of "soft power" that can be used to shape public opinion, spread gossip and invent rumors - all in order to make the life of boat-rockers, in-game and out, a nightmare. If all else fails, they'll simply wait out upstart regimes until a time comes where they can check back in and return everything to how it was.

---snip---

There is a new breed of Discord-savvy, hypersensitive, non- introspective, conflict-averse player who doesn't care about Arelith's laissez-faire "bad things happen to good adventurers" culture. They just want to do Maple Story RP and get married, and they'll happily destroy (socially) anyone who gets in their way.

What's concerning is that the treatment zav received isn't exclusive to him. If you're not a zealous adherent to modern morality & the status quo, you're subject to this vitriol. It's toxic & kills off more characters than PvP killbashing.

I can't fathom why anyone would want to be a settlement leader that does things. It's soul sucking & it definitely wasn't always like this.

Both of these hit the nail on the head for a issue I'm having with the server right now.
It's a big part of why I've shelved Zathlan and why I'm also on a break while I consider what I want to do next or if I even want to make a new character at all.

I'm stumped as to why folks want to play house, having happy families and nice discussions on a high fantasy setting, defeating the barriers of racisim and creating muti-partner relationships while making wish babies every other week.

Perhaps that appeals greatly to some folk but I really miss the days of exciting conflict where settlements weren't all friends while ignoring contriversial actions that goes against a character's morals for the sake of "unity" and I was blissfully ignorant of the reach of OOC toxicity saying about how I'm a horrible person for rocking the boat.

[Arigard]

Agree with much of this thread. As a primarily evil player we often see threads about "How to play evil" and "Conflict problems Underdark vs Surface". People complaining about raids, too much PvP etc.

What people fail to realize is that good vs evil is not about one player developing their character. It's a finely tuned dance across the server as a whole, where actions lead to consequence. The reason more secretive evil is all that really exists is because the second anyone tries to do anything too extreme in either direction (Either pious good below, or more physical in your face evil above) it gets stomped out the moment it begins to maintain the status quo.

When every single person you meet on the surface (or UD, this isn't a one way thing, it's a server issue) runs back to get a kill squad to come remove you, regardless of whether you're a lone evil figure trying to engage, or a group etc it becomes very difficult for any kind of narrative to develop outside of the message board, behind the scenes secretive plotting and planning that ultimately goes nowhere.

There was a thread recently about "How to play a good villain", where most of the dialogue was about the player themselves. What noone seemed to bring up was that across the board, to be allowed to play a villain, the community has to be willing to allow it, likewise with playing extreme good below.

I've lost count of the times I've tried to give individual players time to RP who have either ignored the RP, run/lens-ed away the moment they were approached and then within 5-10 minutes 5-10 fully warded level 30 characters appear to wipe you off the face of the earth. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't currently. How can you possibly develop a character that is more extreme in those conditions? There's only so many times you can watch your lone evil character/or pious good get ganged up on and put in the dirt before you lose all agency and become a laughing stock. "Oh aren't you that evil guy we already killed like 10 times?? lul". Etc,

We're also at a point as many have said, where RP is being bent to the point of extremes simply because people want to be friendly OOC. A necromancer and a druid? Cool, they're the best of friends. That chaotic good Paladin is best buddies with that Banite over there, or that Drow is just chilling with a Sun Elf and getting bent out of shape OOC if anyone shows any kind of issue with it because they know each other OOC. It's getting to the point where it's not even about RP anymore, people simply just don't respect consequence. I've had situations recently where there have been low level characters being obnoxious to clearly much higher level characters and parading around "I don't feel fear, I don't fear death" etc and then the moment you do something about it in a way that is inconvenient to them, you get called an A*8*hole OOC for reacting to their own actions.

It simply gets to a point where the players that want to actually RP canon properly and be the characters as they are written (how it is supposed to be) are simply just giving up because the second you do anything that rocks the boat in any way, it gets stamped out by OOC motivation.

I'm not sure what can be done to fix it, but for me personally, starting by having a stronger enforcement of actual RP canon might help. There needs to actually be more consequence for picking races/classes and paths simply for mechanical, or convenience sake (I want to live here, or be part of this clique OOC etc) and then ignoring, or simply just playing out the character you want to make rather than taking the actual lore and canon into respect. There also needs to be more of a push to remind people that actions & choices have consequences imo and that's not only healthy for RP but also the server.

[-XXX-]

Players deciding to play house with their characters isn't really that much of a problem IMO. As long as they keep that within the limitations set by the server rules, that play style isn't any less valid than that of those who seek to enjoy endless PvE grind, are only ever interested in the "commoner" peddly RP or are always looking to instigate PvP conflict.

On the other hand, thematically defined settlements, be it a racial theme (Brog, Burrowhome, Myon) or class/alignment theme (Radiant Heart, Heartwood, Sencliff) ...is.
Limiting the pool of citizens for these settlements pretty much ensures stagnation and conservative approach to everything ~ it's much easier for the same people push their long term agenda over time if they only ever need to compete with a much smaller sample of characters for leadership positions.
This is exactly the same problem that lead to Benwick's destruction - the RP there became stagnant, repetitive and shying away from new ideas.

Anyone wanting to shake things up on the surface is pretty much limited to Cordor or Guldorand. The majority of surface towns acting in unison, with the exception of an odd squabble over who has the higher moral high ground (is "moar LG"), is a symptom of a bigger underlying issue.

[Irongron]

Over the years I have tried to make the surface a little less 'goodly'; ftom the creation of Sencliff, the removal of the Triad from Cordor to creating the new Banite Temple with a little more nuance granted to their faith.

It was really only during making 'official' cities of the Moonsea during Tyrants that I it really hit home just how far we still have to go if we want to anywhere near approach the moral plurality of the Forgotten Realms setting, a place that SHOULD feel dangerous.

We need do it from world design (new city is another step in that direction) and from our individual roleplay. This shouldn't be viewed as having more PvP, if anything excessive PvP conflict diminishes the setting, but from adjusting our expectations, and being more prepared to be suddenly removed from our comfort zone, without immediately resorting to violence.

It may not be a popular opinion but I think that by coming to blows over the slightest crime or hint of necromancy we are actively sustaining the very stagnation that is being complained about - there is little room for an engaging darker narrative when everyone goes nuclear at the slightest invitation, and zero room for any further storytelling if everyone is dead within 30 minutes. Nothing leaves one more jaded and fatigued than constant PvP.

The situation is really that we have a great many tightly wound players who grind to level 30 in preparation for violence, and will go off like a bloodlust filled barbarian at any perceived slight. I'm reminded a bit of pickpocket where the sentiment from many players, even at the loss of only a few gold coins was that "You touch my stuff I KILL YOU!!!"

So we end up in a situation whereby if you try to create conflict with the dwarves/elves/Cordorians/Banities it can very often soon devolve into a murder party.

Nor do I feel that greater death penalties, as we once had is any kind of solution. This just led to more bitter PvP, where it was yet more important to have a power built level 30 chatacter in one's arsenal.

Is the world too safe in terms of the setting? Most probably. Is it too safe from other characters that may wish to do you harm? I don't believe so, no.

I read a great deal on this thread that was really quote worthy, some superb insights. One thing I really didn't like though was this repeated use of the term 'movers and shakers' vs 'mere' social RPers. I remember when this first surfaced on our forums an it smacks of the worst kind of elitism that has proven so damaging to this server in the past. - no player is more worthy than another, and if you think, for one moment, that you and your buddies are more deserving of server resources than anyone else then you badly need to rethink your attitude. Arelith is for everyone, and those 'social' RPers may offer a lot more to the setting than you think.

For my part, I will try to make the world itself feel a little more dangerous. Reading this thread I was reminded of the cover tagline of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 'A Grim World of Perilous Adventure'

And I thought ours was more...

'An Idyllic World of Occasional Mild Peril'

I'll do my best to improve that.

[Kuma]

I read a great deal on this thread that was really quote worthy, some superb insights. One thing I really didn't like though was this repeated use of the term 'movers and shakers' vs 'mere' social RPers. I remember when this first surfaced on our forums an it smacks of the worst kind of elitism that has proven so damaging to this server in the past. - no player is more worthy than another, and if you think, for one moment, that you and your buddies are more deserving of server resources than anyone else then you badly need to rethink your attitude. Arelith is for everyone, and those 'social' RPers may offer a lot more to the setting than you think.

Sure, but it does work both ways. Otherwise I'm very happy to read your reply.

[Cybren]

While I agree that world design is an important aspect of this, I don't think adding Sencliff was a positive? It is sort of "Little Surface Andunor" in that it is one of the places, along with Sibayad, that you get forced to if you're a surface evil character. It contributes to the problem, rather than really addressing it. The goal should be to have people in Cordor or wherever have to roleplay alongside people whose views are different, right? "Go to pirate island" isn't really helping. Presumably doing more to show the compromised morals of the rest of the surface would go a long way. Cordor's metropole is, after all, a slave-holding colonial empire.

This is cynical, but I don't think mechanical changes can fix what I believe is a cultural problem.

I think the culture is in part a result of the mechanics. Arelith has several character options that are unambiguously Capital E Evil, like Warlock, or animation. Things that, even if the individual character is themselves not evil, are known both in and out of character as being Definitely and Always Metaphysically Evil. Warlocks in particular, are constantly framed by the server staff as "Always pacted to an evil being", which immediately creates a framing for how people will react to their characters. It's understandable- the server wants to eliminate people doing what is perceived of as bad or lazy roleplaying, but I think it's a misguided impulse.

[Crookedblossom]

It's not that we all want to police social RP. It's that social roleplayers are setting the agenda for the surface and making roleplay narratives that are inconvenient to their desired play-style impossible.

I think "unwilling to accept consequences" is putting it mildly. I think there is a network of players who not only refuse to accept consequences, but refuse to accept any kind of shared reality that involves them losing. They will simply create a new world where it didn't happen, where their opponents Never Existed.

I’ve experienced some of this in my playtime as well. In my personal experience, I’ve found that this is a difficult thing to combat because of private communities that talk and end up attributing IC action to OOC mentality. I think the devs asking folks to please not use private community Discords was a good step in the right direction, though it’s not enforced and I understand that it can’t be, really. I think dissuasion from forming these sort of faction-based OOC circles discourages the sort of clique mentality that breeds these kinds of problems.

In my personal experience, taking IC stances that historically conflict with the status quo of that particular group or faction brought a lot of great IC conflict my way, which I enjoyed. What I did not enjoy was the OOC backlash, and while it wasn’t great in quantity, was still loud and continuous.

Players deciding to play house with their characters isn't really that much of a problem IMO.

The issue people see is that this particular kind of roleplay is not only the current prevalent roleplay, but that it is actively encouraged by its player base to the extent that anything disrupting it is considered “not nice.” I disagree also with your comment that class/alignment/racial themed settlements or factions are a hindering factor to roleplay. They’ve been in existence since the server’s conception and only recently in its time have they loosened the restrictions on many of those. I don’t think that is a contributor to the issues being discussed in this thread.

I still consider myself somewhat new, so the general malaise here is somewhat lost on me. There’s a part of me that wants to link a “Just do it” image, but I feel like that might be more dismissive than helpful. I won’t deny that there’s certainly a risk of negative OOC attention if you do rock the boat, I was on the receiving end of it. But until the devs plop down a sign that says: “Welcome to Arelith, here is your complementary tea and biscuits along with your best drow buddy,” then it’s worth continuing to rock that boat. I’ve made more friends on this server than made haters. I’ve had more fun on this server than I’ve had bad times. Ultimately, everyone here has made some excellent points and it breaks my heart to hear that you’re discouraged in the slightest, but I do understand.

I guess I’ll just leave it with, you’re doing a great job and please don’t stop rocking (the boat, and just in general too!)

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

Great thread!

I think the problem I have sometimes with Arelith and evil is finding something to work toward that can actually make an impression that doesn't involve pvp. Its actually quite like the westworld dilema that changed William, if you watched that show. He got all caught up in the story line, but when the androids reset the next day he realized it all meant nothing and ended up going on a 50 year spree of slaughtering hosts.

I believe that having more representation of the aftermath of big raid type events would do wonders for many of the issues brought up here, simply because it would open the doors to so many cool ideas people could have for their evil groups (and even some good ones) that would make a lasting impression. No one is going to remember the raid that had 20 level 30s beating on 13 level 30s for 10 minutes at this point beyond a week or two, but do something that people can see as they walk past it to effect one of the settlements and you will definitely get some cred.

And really, that's good for everyone. You're into social rp and being a goody good? Surely a rebuild project would be fun. You like to make waves but you are tired of arguing in circles or endless "you kill me today I kill you tomorrow" pvp wars? Obviously your good idea sticking around past the few hours and limited people involved is a good thing. You're a new player, and you aren't sure how to break in to the flow of the population? Well, that giant dragon carcass in the middle of your town that wasn't there yesterday seems like a great icebreaker.

Now, I get the pitfalls. More work is obviously a big one, The system you guys operate under makes it difficult to get module changes in fast. But emailing erfs is a thing, and a simple one at that. You also ask for a week before a player event (which could even get extended some if need be) which is plenty of time to have a transformed map at the ready based on what the players are planning assuming they succeed. DMs would be able to get in on this too with their plots. I mean, something like the guldorand camp being overrun by demons for a few weeks until players figure out a way to get rid of them just sounds like a good time to me.

Anyways, I'm in ramble territory now, so I will just reiterate that I think that giving players the ability to do game effecting things that don't involve pvp would ease so much of the tension and issues that came up in this thread. It doesn't have to be huge or setting altering stuff, just something that says "my character joe mcevil was here!" for a while.





Oh, one last thing at the risk of giving people who clamor for the return of wharftown another reason to hate its destruction. The town getting wiped out was what made me take arelith seriously as a server I could play on for the first time after years of giving it a shot from time to time. Its not that I had anything personal against wharftown, I had just started when it happened and I was probably there less then ten times before it was gone. But the idea of the settlement system as I understood it then (which is to say not much) mixed in with a whole town getting destroyed because a group of players flew too close to the sun was totally appealing to me. I realize you can't have a wharftown blowing up every month, but I wanted to share that story to illustrate my personal taste and thoughts on what could make a great server even better.

[Ninjimmy]

I'm still pondering the Conflict and Surface question because this thought kind of dawned on me:

Which is harder, playing an openly evil character who lives on the surface or an openly good character who lives in the Underdark?

I've not experienced that much Andunor but it seems like it'd have pretty much the exact same problem, Underdark RP just feels more "interesting" after a long stint topside because you can play evil easier and I guess killbashing is better accepted (EDIT: Thought better of this after posting it, but leaving it in, I don't think Andunor actually has greater levels of KB). If you play someone who summons celestials in the Hub I'm pretty sure you're gonna get treated exactly the same way as an animator on the surface.

----

Also, can I just throw out I really, really hate the term movers and shakers?
As if throwing a Hellball into a market place "beCaUsE I'm eViL" makes you more interesting than the person playing a commoner who's trying to make the perfect pair of shoes and spends their time interacting with people towards that?

The servers environment only works if you have people living quietly or doing social/political RP so you have a status quo to move and shake, like... is it interesting to declare war if everyone in your settlement is already warring with everyone like it's a game of Total War?

We don't have Team Good Vs Team Evil
Or Team Stagnant VS Team Conflict, really because that makes out there's no clashing or violence being done.

It's Team Law VS Team Chaos

The Surface isn't neutral really, it's just hella, hella lawful across the board and most places have the same laws. So if you break it in one place, because there's interaction between settlements because... well, it's an RP server, now everyone knows you're "criminal scum" and holds it against you.

Which is why you need to show either an iota of common sense like, I dunno, NOT playing an open necromancer/warlock or associating with one so closely that you receive entirely foreseen consequences, in order to thrive while not adhering to their rules (EDIT: Thought better of this too, guilt by association is an ugly look for leadership and shouldn't really have a steep exile penality. But I do think it needs to be considered when building a character, any N characters I have who know Necromancers begs them to keep it on the downlow near civilisation).
Like... I asked the Andunor thing but its the exact same, if you play a "good" character in the Underdark you HAVE to be smart or die, the surface is exactly the same.

... With that said, it would be interesting to have a settlement playing the villain card or to have a greater range of cultural issues. That one time Cordor was run by a chancellor who worshipped Saveras? That was a pretty fun 1984 stint.
But the problem is, with Team Chaos VS Team Law, Law's probably going to do better in elections because they're unified and the status quo. Who's going to elect a shady looking chancellor who might start handing out pariahs and confiscating shops for the sake of creating conflict? People want their shops, man! I'll vote for the Good aligned incumbent to keep my stuff safe while I go RP somewhere.

In order for Team Chaos to actually move and shake things, all it needs is to have people teaming up and working together to take over a settlement then work out what their character's IC goal is - or work with the DM's to commit election fraud. I mean, if everyone in this thread who doesn't like the neutrality of the Surface worked together, you could probably really mess up an election or even win one.

i am glad you enjoyed it. i had a lot of fun back then too, but i received a LOT of OOC hate for the decisions i made on rick. whole discords existed (in part) to trash talk me. conspiracies were spun. it was a mess, and all because i played a pragmatic character and had an interest in storytelling beyond bashing banites when they were level 12 (which i could have done).

I remember Rick and while IC I had a real axe to grind against him, I remember OOC respecting the hell out of making complex antagonism while being a chancellor without it just feeling like conflict for conflict's sake.

If you didn't get that positive feedback, just wanna add that I also enjoyed his stint as chancellor. I mean... I always assumed it was intended to stir the pot and Rick's alignment was somewhere south of G, but with that assumption in mind, it was an interesting time.

[Ork]

One thing I really didn't like though was this repeated use of the term 'movers and shakers' vs 'mere' social RPers. I remember when this first surfaced on our forums an it smacks of the worst kind of elitism that has proven so damaging to this server in the past. - no player is more worthy than another, and if you think, for one moment, that you and your buddies are more deserving of server resources than anyone else then you badly need to rethink your attitude. Arelith is for everyone, and those 'social' RPers may offer a lot more to the setting than you think.

Movers and shakers is a term used to define the inclusive storyteller. These individuals often earn 40 RPRs, and generally have been what roleplayers should strive to be..or at least it was. I think the community gets a mixed message when we strive to promote higher roleplay standards but also are fine with complacent & often hostility stagnant individuals.

Perhaps I am elitist but I am unapologetic that the people that roleplay inclusive doers are better than any other player on this server. They are the model that we should strive to become. By casting them as the model, I think it shows people what they should be working towards. When I started Arelith, the drive to become one that told stories inclusively was so powerful because these people were held to a higher standard & respected for their ability in communicating a story. We don't have that anymore.

I don't have many "buddies" on Arelith these days between my play time being next to nil, but I play enough to see that stagnation has got a stranglehold on a lot of the server.

[Ninjimmy]

One thing I really didn't like though was this repeated use of the term 'movers and shakers' vs 'mere' social RPers. I remember when this first surfaced on our forums an it smacks of the worst kind of elitism that has proven so damaging to this server in the past. - no player is more worthy than another, and if you think, for one moment, that you and your buddies are more deserving of server resources than anyone else then you badly need to rethink your attitude. Arelith is for everyone, and those 'social' RPers may offer a lot more to the setting than you think.

Movers and shakers is a term used to define the inclusive storyteller. These individuals often earn 40 RPRs, and generally have been what roleplayers should strive to be..or at least it was. I think the community gets a mixed message when we strive to promote higher roleplay standards but also are fine with complacent & often hostility stagnant individuals.

Perhaps I am elitist but I am unapologetic that the people that roleplay inclusive doers are better than any other player on this server. They are the model that we should strive to become. By casting them as the model, I think it shows people what they should be working towards. When I started Arelith, the drive to become one that told stories inclusively was so powerful because these people were held to a higher standard & respected for their ability in communicating a story. We don't have that anymore.

I don't have many "buddies" on Arelith these days between my play time being next to nil, but I see enough to see that stagnation has got a stranglehold on a lot of the server.

Where are you getting these term definitions, man O.o? Is it somewhere on the wiki I'm missing?

Why would anyone think "Mover and Shaker" means "Inclusive storyteller", and why would "Inclusive story teller" be diametrically opposed to "Social Roleplayer"? The social RP people are still telling a story, and it can still be inclusive and involve other people, it's just not one where people get slave collars clamped on or a town gets blown up.

Like... I've only been here a year or two but I've only ever heard "Mover and Shaker" to mean the character equivalent of an earthquake in the sense it happens to someone else's story whether they want it to or not (for better or worse).

[mash]

I think the culture is in part a result of the mechanics. Arelith has several character options that are unambiguously Capital E Evil, like Warlock, or animation. Things that, even if the individual character is themselves not evil, are known both in and out of character as being Definitely and Always Metaphysically Evil. Warlocks in particular, are constantly framed by the server staff as "Always pacted to an evil being", which immediately creates a framing for how people will react to their characters. It's understandable- the server wants to eliminate people doing what is perceived of as bad or lazy roleplaying, but I think it's a misguided impulse.

This is on point. As it stands currently, warlocks and animators are not only criminals, they are capital criminals by most surface law. Not their alignment, but their extreme deeds made them excluded from (what is considered by them) civilized society. With a (relatively) small server population and the immense spying abilities available to many characters, such affiliations will become known sooner rather than later. The only situation I see how these characters don't get banned from surface settlements is to force or heavily incentivize that they are protected by law. However, to achieve this you would need some justifiable ingame reason to do that. Can you imagine a settlement leader candidate going "Animating ain't so bad, if you vote for me I will allow your uncle Bob being dug out of his grave and turned into a zombie"? I really try to give breathing room to evil characters, but there is a limit to which a character can reasonably go. This is why I think server development/DM's need to force the issue just a bit. Give everyone a good reason to treat these guys not as criminals. Force a Banite temple in Cordor? Sure. Angering such a powerful god is bad and Banites do well in cilizied envionments by lore. Regarding animation, maybe force to allow it under very strict limits because the Thayans will move in with a bag of gold (or offering awesome defensive golem armies) but they want to have "licensed cooperation with verified parties". In turn, evil characters who wish to keep settlement privileges will long term have to abide by the laws or face consequences. They need protection, but can't get blanket immunity either. To support more extreme lawless characters in the cities, disguises would have to be much more powerful and pretty much unbreakable without much effort (e.g. only after pvp).

In the area of less extreme conflict such as eternal settlement alliances, it would be great if there was some ingame incentive for settlements to butt heads instead of staying in an eternal alliance. It doesn't even need to be a mechanic, but if right now there is no generally understandable reason to do so, you will just not be able to convince a majority. I get that you need sometimes to bend your character ooc to do something that is more fun for everyone instead of doing what your character actually would do. But there is a big difference between "deciding to be distracted so the evil necromancer you found can flee" and "convincing an entire settlement to not replace you for pushing an agenda which at face severely hurts your settlement with at best a flimsy justification".

[-XXX-]

Players deciding to play house with their characters isn't really that much of a problem IMO.

The issue people see is that this particular kind of roleplay is not only the current prevalent roleplay, but that it is actively encouraged by its player base to the extent that anything disrupting it is considered “not nice.” I disagree also with your comment that class/alignment/racial themed settlements or factions are a hindering factor to roleplay. They’ve been in existence since the server’s conception and only recently in its time have they loosened the restrictions on many of those. I don’t think that is a contributor to the issues being discussed in this thread.

I don't want to sound like some big proponent of social RP (because I am not) - certainly only ever pursuing one aspect of the character at the expense of everything else can lead to a little one-dimensional storytelling. But the same can be said about PvE, PvP, political RP - you name it.
What you are describing is an issue with OOC attitude, but ascribing it to one particular playstyle is a little narrow-sighted.

It's like saying that, for instance "Pirate RP = poor PvP = bad", which frankly would be an uninformed statement.


As for my racial/class/alignment themed settlement argument - yes, they've been around for ages. Most of them went through repeated prolonged periods of "ghost town" states over the years and when that was not the case, their leadership changed very sporadically and almost never organically.
If that doesn't yell stagnation then I don't know what does

[D4wN]

So I agree with a lot said in this thread and especially some points from the original poster. My current active character has been around for just over 1 RL year. She is a long term character who has gone through multiple conflict arcs both Surface vs Surface based and Surface vs Underdark based.

For me the key in all of this is simple. We are all here to tell a story. Whether your story is to simply enjoy and have pie in Bendir and hang out with your friends, going on adventures Bilbo Baggins style and generally just enjoy being someone you're not IRL. Or whether you are, as IG calls them, a mover and a shaker. These are both valid ways to tell a story.

I have been presented multiple times over the duration of this character with story arcs from evil characters. My character has been chewed out for being forgiving, choosing to ignore -disguise breaks to see where a story would lead me, choosing to stand up for a monster because they're alone versus 10 Surfacers, doing multiple redemption/conversion arcs and numerous other things. I have actively collaborated with 'evils' to create stories for other people around us.

This is key. Collaborative Storytelling.

Losing is okay. It doesn't make your character any less amazing. Winning is okay. It doesn't make the other character any less amazing. And sometimes chosing RP over mechanics is okay. Not everyone can be a mover and a shaker. Some people are simply just not that way inclined. But for those people who are, it's so incredibly important to be lenient without breaking what your character stands for. Allowing Banites to be removed from the PNG list in Cordor for example at great risk of being boo'd and shunned (again). You just need to find some people who are willing to take a hit to encourage inclusive RP. And I will personally always strive for that. It's so important to allow others to tell their story as it is important for you to tell yours.

I've made an evil character for the first time. And I honestly have my fingers crossed I will not have someone with 100+ spot examine spam me so I can be outed all over the Surface and have my story go untold. Because yes, I truly do agree this happens far too many times. If the focus shifts from 'play-to-win' to collaborative storytelling, we all win.

[torugor]

I expected some backslash against me for being friends of evil players. Not that i would become pariah and exiled because of it. One thing is everybody look at a character and know he is up to no good and keep vigilance to find something to use against him. Other totally different is to send him away completelly before he does do something wrong. The first allows for great rp. The second just causes my character me to want to destroy the city and everybody inside it.

But i want to address the thing you said about death.

I went to arelith wiki about death (http://wiki.nwnarelith.com/Death)

It mainly speaks of the game-mechanics. And I already told what i think of the mechanics and how it is a mere inconvenience to the players.

RPwise it says every person can rp it the way he likes. Even the memory loss is not required. There is nothing about the brutal lost and recovery of the soul other than the game-mechanics aspect. IT does say the amnesia is encouraged. So lets go for the encouraged one.

If amnesia is encouraged my character dont remember of being killed. dont remember of what happened in kelemvor's halls and dont remember any pain caused by death. He wakes up confused and unaware of what happened and that is something that only helps him have no fear of death...as he has no bad memories regarding it.

Now if i good deep on Forgotten realms lore and i go for Tempuran faith. One of the few things a tempuran cannot show is FEAR. Fear is something tempus despises. If a tempuran shows fear he is going against his faith and therefore risking his soul not go to the equivalent to Vahalla. For a tempuran priest acting on behalf of his god, you can expect him to laugh to death. To say death has no meaning for him. To curse and mock those who fear death. BECAUSE ITS IN THE LORE!

This dont mean i will die and go after you just after. That i will keep a grudge and keep dieing over and over. This means i wont show fear. That i will show bravery to the bitter end. And that i will just say my god is with me and will protect me from death or send me to his holy halls to fight with him.

So I will repeat. its not against the mechanics. Its not against the Lore of this server. and its not against the lore of forgotten realms.

stuff

I just wanted to put my own two cents in on your perspective that Guldorand and Cordor are only accessible to good aligned people. My character is a open Banite in Guldorand, and that has caused quite a stir in his time, but it has not stopped him from achieving things within the settlement. He is by no means a good person, just extremely dutiful. Good and Evil to me is just acting on more skewed moral judgements, or not, and then what you are on the Law and Chaos scale dictates what those actions would be.

So really it is about your characters interactions, and associations with other characters that really make a impact rather than if you are good or evil in a alignment chart, from what I have seen. Given your examples, you say your brother is a Necromancer, so in turn that will put a bad light on you regardless just by association as most surface places are opposed to the practice.

The issue I see is the way surface settlements enforce a culture as a whole island, rather than separate entities, something my isolationist character despises, having dirty southerner customs creep up to the mountains! So while alliances are totally natural IC, we seem to focus too much on exactly what is going on in each settlement always, as far as the surface goes. And that does perpetuate the feeling of a ingrained system that could be hard to break, but given recent IC actions, and reactions there is definitely possibilities of drastic change.

And as for RPing your character having no negative effects from dying in battle repeatedly just because he worships Tempus doesn't make sense to me. You have to think of the reality of it, your soul is being torn away, sent to the wall, and then back again. This will take a toll on anyone, regardless of their motivations. You can certainly still RP has the battle ready tempuran, but you would still have to RP the effects of the loss, if you don't already.
[/quote]

[torugor]

Seeing that there is intention to create another city and to allow conflict to flow in the surface...i want to give another group of ideas.


1- Cordor is too big of a city. It should be the center of a lot of non-pvp conflict. Of political conflict. One server i played before that gave me this feeling had a big city like cordor and ellections. But it was not a one player ellection. The city was divided in 4. The farmlands, the merchantile, the military and the docks. Each had their leader and they had to work together to make the city run. That gives a great dinamic because the leader of the merchantile may be a greedy guy while the military was a paladin and the docks a pirate. It allowed for crime to work. Also if you see any big city there should be a slums area where crime flourish.

2- I think you dont need to make new cities. You need to have give more spaces for people to have houses. Players tend to cluster where they can keep their stuff. If there was a space for people to have houses inside fortresses, small docks (like crows nest) and even dungeons...you would see that people would make small guilds and plan their stuff.

3- Allow people to loose. In the game people can only loose through pvp and even that is too safe. Danger comes from the possibility of loss. And it goes equal to both good players and evil ones. I think not allowing people to be robbed or loose property and loose stuff at all makes it all too safe. It should not be something to be sploited. We are not ingame 24/7 but there must be a window when stuff can happen. Something like...if the player is online their house can be robbed. If a player is online he must care about his property. Or pehaps a player can pay soldiers to protect their stuff when he is not around.

What i mean is...if the mechanics dont allow your character to have significat losses for not being prepared...it is all too safe. The mechanics allow people to hold a lot of stuff kept in their houses because they are not afraid of being robbed. Even the bank is a safety measure. Why cant a player just rob the bank? Its all too safe. The game mechanics protects all from any harm.

Over the years I have tried to make the surface a little less 'goodly'; ftom the creation of Sencliff, the removal of the Triad from Cordor to creating the new Banite Temple with a little more nuance granted to their faith.

It was really only during making 'official' cities of the Moonsea during Tyrants that I it really hit home just how far we still have to go if we want to anywhere near approach the moral plurality of the Forgotten Realms setting, a place that SHOULD feel dangerous.

We need do it from world design (new city is another step in that direction) and from our individual roleplay. This shouldn't be viewed as having more PvP, if anything excessive PvP conflict diminishes the setting, but from adjusting our expectations, and being more prepared to be suddenly removed from our comfort zone, without immediately resorting to violence.

It may not be a popular opinion but I think that by coming to blows over the slightest crime or hint of necromancy we are actively sustaining the very stagnation that is being complained about - there is little room for an engaging darker narrative when everyone goes nuclear at the slightest invitation, and zero room for any further storytelling if everyone is dead within 30 minutes. Nothing leaves one more jaded and fatigued than constant PvP.

The situation is really that we have a great many tightly wound players who grind to level 30 in preparation for violence, and will go off like a bloodlust filled barbarian at any perceived slight. I'm reminded a bit of pickpocket where the sentiment from many players, even at the loss of only a few gold coins was that "You touch my stuff I KILL YOU!!!"

So we end up in a situation whereby if you try to create conflict with the dwarves/elves/Cordorians/Banities it can very often soon devolve into a murder party.

Nor do I feel that greater death penalties, as we once had is any kind of solution. This just led to more bitter PvP, where it was yet more important to have a power built level 30 chatacter in one's arsenal.

Is the world too safe in terms of the setting? Most probably. Is it too safe from other characters that may wish to do you harm? I don't believe so, no.

I read a great deal on this thread that was really quote worthy, some superb insights. One thing I really didn't like though was this repeated use of the term 'movers and shakers' vs 'mere' social RPers. I remember when this first surfaced on our forums an it smacks of the worst kind of elitism that has proven so damaging to this server in the past. - no player is more worthy than another, and if you think, for one moment, that you and your buddies are more deserving of server resources than anyone else then you badly need to rethink your attitude. Arelith is for everyone, and those 'social' RPers may offer a lot more to the setting than you think.

For my part, I will try to make the world itself feel a little more dangerous. Reading this thread I was reminded of the cover tagline of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 'A Grim World of Perilous Adventure'

And I thought ours was more...

'An Idyllic World of Occasional Mild Peril'

I'll do my best to improve that.

[Crookedblossom]

Players deciding to play house with their characters isn't really that much of a problem IMO.

The issue people see is that this particular kind of roleplay is not only the current prevalent roleplay, but that it is actively encouraged by its player base to the extent that anything disrupting it is considered “not nice.” I disagree also with your comment that class/alignment/racial themed settlements or factions are a hindering factor to roleplay. They’ve been in existence since the server’s conception and only recently in its time have they loosened the restrictions on many of those. I don’t think that is a contributor to the issues being discussed in this thread.

I don't want to sound like some big proponent of social RP (because I am not) - certainly only ever pursuing one aspect of the character at the expense of everything else can lead to a little one-dimensional storytelling. But the same can be said about PvE, PvP, political RP - you name it.
What you are describing is an issue with OOC attitude, but ascribing it to one particular playstyle is a little narrow-sighted.

It's like saying that, for instance "Pirate RP = poor PvP = bad", which frankly would be an uninformed statement.


As for my racial/class/alignment themed settlement argument - yes, they've been around for ages. Most of them went through repeated prolonged periods of "ghost town" states over the years and when that was not the case, their leadership changed very sporadically and almost never organically.
If that doesn't yell stagnation then I don't know what does

I might not have made myself entirely clear, but I’m using the term “social RP” here in the meaning that is being discussed in this thread. I’m not referring to social RP itself, like playing house or low-conflict roleplay. I’m not attributing this to any one sect of roleplayers, or saying that doing any amount of low-conflict roleplay is detrimental or bad, because it’s not. Please don’t misunderstand that.

The concern is not the level of quality being brought to the server, rather the expectations being brought to the server by players. I need to emphasize that, it’s their –expectations-. If people want to play house, that’s fine. It becomes an issue when the “you’re breaking the Be Nice rule” card is played when said “social RP” inevitably leads to a character having conflict with your low-conflict character. Which again, appears to be among the general concerns on this thread. I don’t think that’s a narrow assessment, personally.

Regarding stagnation of settlements based on race/class/alignment, I think you’re correct to some degree. There are certain hindrances (like the Mythal) that aren’t really helpful, given the server’s population. But I have no trouble with an all-paladin/cleric order, or a druid-led faction. Those factions can still have participants outside of those class restrictions if roleplay allows for it, and often they do. I’ll restate, I don’t think that’s a contributing factor to the problems being discussed in this thread. But that's just my own personal opinion.

[Gwenneth_Corvain]

[...]

We need do it from world design (new city is another step in that direction) and from our individual roleplay. This shouldn't be viewed as having more PvP, if anything excessive PvP conflict diminishes the setting, but from adjusting our expectations, and being more prepared to be suddenly removed from our comfort zone, without immediately resorting to violence.

It may not be a popular opinion but I think that by coming to blows over the slightest crime or hint of necromancy we are actively sustaining the very stagnation that is being complained about - there is little room for an engaging darker narrative when everyone goes nuclear at the slightest invitation, and zero room for any further storytelling if everyone is dead within 30 minutes. Nothing leaves one more jaded and fatigued than constant PvP.

The situation is really that we have a great many tightly wound players who grind to level 30 in preparation for violence, and will go off like a bloodlust filled barbarian at any perceived slight. I'm reminded a bit of pickpocket where the sentiment from many players, even at the loss of only a few gold coins was that "You touch my stuff I KILL YOU!!!"

[...]

So this is an idea i have had for a very long time because i very much agree that PvP as it is now is very often not as meaningful as we all want it to be. It is too often the default reaction.

Make PvP dangerous. Not just painful to the looser. Make drawing your sword or readying your spell to fight to the DEATH actually be a risky descission. Doesn't matter how good-aweful-awesome your build is. Doesn't matter how hard you rofl-stomp the other side. Fighting someone to the death, going within range of someones sharp and pointy murderstick is always dangerous. Something random might happen. A momentary lapse of attention, an unlucky spark from the clashing of blades distracts, a spell blasts just that unfortunate little cloud of dust in your eye at the wrong moment. And even in victory you substain a minor.. but permanent wound. Something that will remind you for the rest of your life of that battle..

I think any PvP should carry the miniscule risk of a random permanent malus - win or loose. The hope is that people - even the gods among us, might think twice before defaulting to the "let's murder" reactions.

Addendum: Perhaps limit this to characters past a certain level so it cannot be exploited by charging hordes of throwaway low-level characters at your foes. Life can be cheap when you are still young and inexperienced.. but those level 20+ characters should really mellow down abit and pick their battles

[The GrumpyCat]

I've not yet gone back and read through the latest posts, but I did peep past Irongrons and I do want to add a little something to it:

As DM's of the last few years, we've tried to enforce less... tolerance for certain things. For example Underdarkers, Undead, Drow, Outcasts.

I think though that there tends to be a little misscommunication.

What we do NOT want
'Oh wow Your'e a Necromancer/Warlock/Drow!! Come in! Have some Tea! Have some Crumpets! Would you like a hug? I'm not like all the other bigots! Let's be bestest friends ever!!'

But also what we do NOT want

'AAAAHHHHH DIIIIIEEEE!'

What We Actually Like To See
*Distrust
*Fear
*Insulting
*Attempts to Convert
*Attempts to redeem
*Attempts to corrupt
*Careful negotiations
*Theological debates.
*Tricking
*Decieving
*Spying
* Even occasionally allying in the face of a Greater Evil.
So on, so forth.

Conflict does NOT mean pvp. It can mean a whole raft of other things that can be just as much as much fun, if not more, and often much more meaningful to story and concept.

It's the middle ground we encourage. And often the middle ground that's more fun.

[JoeKickAss]

As a new player, my 2 cents:

The number of races + classes on offer is Arelith's primary strength.

Underdark-Surface relations is basically kill on sight, which makes any underdark intrigue impossible.

Arelith falls in to a trap, in my opinion, that other persistent servers fall into and treat "monster races" as all unthinking lunatics who's sole purpose is to kill everything. Ive read some forgotten realms, and they DO NOT characterise any race like this. Kobolds, in particular, are not barbaric.

[torugor]

I am glad to see the server DMs opinion regards conflicst in the server and how it should be.

It is not at all what i see ingame though. And I post it here not as a critic (i really like playing here and want it to improve) but as a way to demonstrate how new policies need to be enforced and informed if the idea is to get closer to the vision of the server.

My brother necromancer encounters goes like this: "Take off your undeads or we will kill you - buff buff buff buff" then the necro says "stop buffing." and then all attack. Heard he tell me that if he does take off the undeads he is attacked either way...but with less advantage.

As for me. I think i get some of the rp you mentioned. I am not a necro but people tend to go for:
*Distrust *Fear *Insulting *Attempts to Convert *Attempts to redeem *Spying
I get most of the things you expected to go for the worse. Not surprised the necros get the attack on sight treatment.

I've not yet gone back and read through the latest posts, but I did peep past Irongrons and I do want to add a little something to it:

As DM's of the last few years, we've tried to enforce less... tolerance for certain things. For example Underdarkers, Undead, Drow, Outcasts.

I think though that there tends to be a little misscommunication.

What we do NOT want
'Oh wow Your'e a Necromancer/Warlock/Drow!! Come in! Have some Tea! Have some Crumpets! Would you like a hug? I'm not like all the other bigots! Let's be bestest friends ever!!'

But also what we do NOT want

'AAAAHHHHH DIIIIIEEEE!'

What We Actually Like To See
*Distrust
*Fear
*Insulting
*Attempts to Convert
*Attempts to redeem
*Attempts to corrupt
*Careful negotiations
*Theological debates.
*Tricking
*Decieving
*Spying
* Even occasionally allying in the face of a Greater Evil.
So on, so forth.

Conflict does NOT mean pvp. It can mean a whole raft of other things that can be just as much as much fun, if not more, and often much more meaningful to story and concept.

It's the middle ground we encourage. And often the middle ground that's more fun.