Conflict and the surface.

[-XXX-]

TBH players not being graceful in victory and not being graceful in loss immensely contributes to this issue. There's an increasing reluctance to engage in smaller interpersonal conflicts between characters - players either do not engage at all or go absolutely nuclear against their opponents in an effort to always get the last say. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground between this.

The most common example of ungraceful victory would be only ever accepting the definitive victory in any given conflict. Usually takes the form of pursuit to rally all possible allies only to have the opposing side repeatedly PvPed and exiled from everywhere and not letting go ever for as long as they are around - this all happening despite the conflict at hand could easily and meaningfully have played out between a smaller group of characters and lead to a conclusion other than the absolute OOC demolition of one of the sides.

The most common example of ungraceful loss would be... simply put the "pridegaming" attitude. This often revolves around spinning the loss into a win:
"I'm gonna PvP you now and if I win, I get to look like a badass, if I lose I can get you exiled anyway"
"You PvPed me? Cool beans bro, I'll just respawn to indentify u and get the last laugh"
These are just some of the examples how easy it is to rig the stakes into win-win situation by navigating certain OOC limitations of the game.

[Archon]

There's a lot of facets in the topic, and I'll bring up a few in brief form.

I have reached a point as a player, where I don't know how to contribute positively to the server. As in, there's a constant feeling that established structures will be impossible to shake, and craft anything ''new'', in a way that it creates a wider story and shifts the grid. I have played around different concepts, characters, and where ever I turn, or regardless what I do, I perceive same problems and face same obstacles. It is all to do with how entrenched groups and settlements are. I have said it many times in my discussions with various people (privately, I rarely chime in at forums) that the removal of Wharftown was a biggest nominator in making the server sot-so interesting and destroying a sense of changing environment where factions can make a difference and rally under varying banners, and characters being in the position to push for new narratives. I am uncomfortable seeing ''social rp'' take over surface, and the apparent safety everywhere is extremely demoralizing. I have recently been playing in Andunor, and Andunor incidentally suffers somewhat of the same issues; while there it is more compressed with lack of alternatives in the case a larger conflict would break out, and as such people are even further disinclined to go through the motions to initiate schemes to take over territories. Backlash would be huge, and it's a real concern for sake of player enjoyment no matter how tidily people try to do it. Civil wars are messy, inter-city conflicts can get messy, and this in turn forces UD vs surface conflict state which is, frankly, bland and tired. Alternatives however are sparse in how the setting is set up right now, as OP and some others in the thread wrote.

I am an advocate of nuclear option, and have been since introduction of Greyport, and now with the introduction of another castle, and the New City in the horizon. If the worry for breaking alliances and shaken status quo is so prevalent, and in part because of the settlement system and the kind of roleplay it encourages (stagnation, alliances that bring fire and flame onto those who do not agree and conform) -- execute a hard reset on all settlements/districts.

Bring all to level, and force competition over resources, gold, manpower, territory. I don't honestly think anything can fix the current situation unless all that's there right now is demolished. Chaos of the situation would immediately open up way more opportunities for everyone, than trying to break through the thick of current structures.

Blank slate all settlement resources, clear all settlement bank accounts. Factions and settlements that have been stockpiling without much of a fuss for years and years RL would be knocked down with the rest, and forced to build and focus to advocate for their own settlement's growth, and care less for their neighbors' problems. Only issue I can perceive is the impossibly rich characters involved with a settlement simply pouring gold in to negate the effect, but at the least it should leave a struggle to build city back up by other means. At the moment there's no need to do this, because everything is so ''established''. I think most players can agree resources and city management, all the numbers, is not great fun, but sitting upon a decade of resources is not very exciting either and do more harm than good.

I am not a great fan of the settlement system, and while Sibayad helps with some issues described in the thread, I think the last thing that should happen is to make it player governed. Expanding it would be great with more functions, but please, no buttons for players to push and control the place with.

Some of the dilemma is also embedded in the player culture which is tied to modern human ideals and consciousness, encouraging ''safe space'' and ''tolerance'' all over the IG playing field -- which is considered a civilized mindset and it has taken over said civilized spheres of Arelith settlements. It's the death of tension, and fantasy setting. We are not our characters. Let the characters be more greedy, more hateful, more confrontational, idealistic in form of zealotry, taking risks and breaking things, make them aggressively racist or otherwise driven by something that will make people stand against your characters (due what they represent and are, not solely because someone kidnapped your sweetheart for the third time). If the tolerance boogeyman and modern mindset would be gone from the setting, it might start to shift things along naturally but this is easier said than done. I can still hope!

(ps. tolerance plight manifests through good monsters and how it waters down the setting. pls move good monsters to greater award - or force good monsters to stay in UD to cause conflict there, instead of having teatimes with surfacer chums. at the moment it's not happening, and dealing with non monster monsters fallout and bigot outcries is not great)

[-XXX-]

Bring all to level, and force competition over resources, gold, manpower, territory. I don't honestly think anything can fix the current situation unless all that's there right now is demolished. Chaos of the situation would immediately open up way more opportunities for everyone, than trying to break through the thick of current structures.

Blank slate all settlement resources, clear all settlement bank accounts. Factions and settlements that have been stockpiling without much of a fuss for years and years RL would be knocked down with the rest, and forced to build and focus to advocate for their own settlement's growth, and care less for their neighbors' problems. Only issue I can perceive is the impossibly rich characters involved with a settlement simply pouring gold in to negate the effect, but at the least it should leave a struggle to build city back up by other means. At the moment there's no need to do this, because everything is so ''established''. I think most players can agree resources and city management, all the numbers, is not great fun, but sitting upon a decade of resources is not very exciting either and do more harm than good.

I honestly don't think that would have been a solution at all.
Most established factions wield wealth that vastly exceeds what's in their settlement's coffers and would simply fund the town from their own pockets.
Had you gone even farther and tried wiping out all -faction and individual character bank accounts too, well then most established factions would have still coped much easier as most of them perform like a well-oiled machine capable of obtaining wealth counting in millions within a RL week while individual players and smaller factions might end up struggling.

[Arienette]

I am currently dealing with this issue IC so I won’t provide any details.

But I will say that my character proposing some small ways in which some things could be shaken up a bit has been met with almost universal scorn and hostility.

So I can +1 the sentiment that the main goal for many seems to me to be to keep things stable and not rock the boat.

[torugor]

In my last post i gave you my character`s lifetime ingame that clearly showed how separated in good and evil the settlements are. If you are good you stay in cordor or guldorand. if you are evil you go to andunor or sencliff. Its is clear to me as a new player that there is little space for mixup.

Now i would like to post some options i can see to solve it. I am a developer of games myself so this things here is what i would do:

1- Make more places where people can concentrate. You already have a faction system and quarters. You have a big world. And you have lots and lots of players online all the time. Why not give more room for people to live in? I play for 2 months and cant have a house ingame! Sencliff wont give me house cause i am not inked. Cordor and Guldorand wont give because i am pariah. Why there is not houses in Crows nest, simbayad, and other supposedly neutral places? Its unrealistic. There is no need to place a settlement system with taxes and stuff. Just let people live there and have a place to hold their stuff.

2- Make dungeons and castles livable. Man how cool would it be that in the end of a big dungeon i could find a player as villain? I once visited the manor on top of the island. Lots of zombies and undeads...and in the end a easy to kill count. I have a sociopath necro brother who lives in a normal house in sencliff. Wouldnt it be great if he could own a quarter in that manor? And sometimes there was chance that you entered that manor you would find him? Not asking to take the monsters from the dungeon. Make the monsters dont attack the owner and boom...you have a player with a dungeon for himself. Or leave the monsters attacking everybody if you want. Just put an easy quarter with a teleport in-out and a place for the player to place his stuff. Would even be greater that in that place when the player is online his stuff could be attacked and stolen. Would make the character want to be in his dungeon to protect it.

3- I heard castles are bought. That seems ok to start but it is not realistic to be kept. A castle exists to defend the people inside from outside threats. It is meant to be attacked and meant to be eventually taken. Why not make it a post system where players wanting to take a castle just post the day and hour a raid will happen. And then lets characters settle who owns the castle. IF a faction has the juice to mobilize enough people to take the castle in a set day/time it should be doable.

Conflict comes from people wanting what they dont have. By placing mechanical ways for people to obtain things and for people to loose them a conflict will emmerge. Most of the 3 topics above can be solved with the mechanic systems i already saw ingame and some control on forums. Little work maximum benefit.

[Aradin]

Great thread; I agree with much that is being said.

At the risk of saying a little too much, I want to offer this: My UD character is currently at the centre of a conflict being instigated against a surface faction and I have frankly been stunned at the number of surface characters coming to me with interest in joining my side, not because they're necessarily stoked about fighting with me personally, but because they've tried other means to create conflict on the surface and have been shut down hard. Allying with Andunor is the only chance they have at creating interesting conflict. It makes me feel bad for them, because I know that allying with Andunor flips the nuclear kill switch on them from the perspective of the surface. These aren't necessarily characters and factions who would reasonably ally with UD characters. I can see they would make some tremendous moral/ethical/gray zone RP for the surface, but it's just impossible for them to get a foothold. They're forced to join with Andunor just to get anything done.

There's a post above with the sentiment of "If safe, social RP is what players want to do, then what's wrong with that?' I think that's a terrific viewpoint. Those of us commenting here wanting more conflict may very well be in the minority. If more people on the server have fun being forever safe, maybe that's the direction the server should go.
Ultimately Irongron decides the server direction, so I eagerly await his thoughts on this matter. There are clearly two different RP cultures competing here: those interested in stories involving conflict between surface folks, and those who aren't. I think Irongron and the DM team need to make it known what kind of culture they want the server to have, and if they want one with conflict on the surface, then to forcibly step in and cause some. Whether it's through OOC organization or years of stockpiling resources & connections IG, the established surface factions/settlements have all the tools they need to shut down conflict RP before it begins - and they are clearly doing so.

[torugor]

First i must say you are absolute right. If you are who i think you are ingame, the reason my priest came to you is because there is no other option for that in the surface. And i had to re-read 3 times all lore of tempus just to be sure i am not stepping in eggs by doing so.

While i am eager to see where the DMs will position on the matter, I must say there is no need for a hard position neither.
If you read any book of forgotten realms you will see each city has his own costums and behaviours. I got to learn how Arelith work in the last months and accept it. And play along.

I am just saying that allowing for more places where players can be ingame there might be chances for the people that really really love safe `second life` rp to stay safe. I mean cordor already exists for them. Its a walled protected place for them to live.

Thing is there is a great playerbase who wants more of a conflict. Want to have a chance to hear stories of good and evil and be a part of it. Want to do more than kill monsters and talk want to create great stories. If there was a option for people to make more small groups outside the walls of the big cities...we can just be rp our conflict outside the walls and the goodie goodie guys would find their place and we would find ours.

Great thread; I agree with much that is being said.

At the risk of saying a little too much, I want to offer this: My UD character is currently at the centre of a conflict being instigated against a surface faction and I have frankly been stunned at the number of surface characters coming to me with interest in joining my side, not because they're necessarily stoked about fighting with me personally, but because they've tried other means to create conflict on the surface and have been shut down hard. Allying with Andunor is the only chance they have at creating interesting conflict. It makes me feel bad for them, because I know that allying with Andunor flips the nuclear kill switch on them from the perspective of the surface. These aren't necessarily characters and factions who would reasonably ally with UD characters. I can see they would make some tremendous moral/ethical/gray zone RP for the surface, but it's just impossible for them to get a foothold. They're forced to join with Andunor just to get anything done.

There's a post above with the sentiment of "If safe, social RP is what players want to do, then what's wrong with that?' I think that's a terrific viewpoint. Those of us commenting here wanting more conflict may very well be in the minority. If more people on the server have fun being forever safe, maybe that's the direction the server should go.
Ultimately Irongron decides the server direction, so I eagerly await his thoughts on this matter. There are clearly two different RP cultures competing here: those interested in stories involving conflict between surface folks, and those who aren't. I think Irongron and the DM team need to make it known what kind of culture they want the server to have, and if they want one with conflict on the surface, then to forcibly step in and cause some. Whether it's through OOC organization or years of stockpiling resources & connections IG, the established surface factions/settlements have all the tools they need to shut down conflict RP before it begins - and they are clearly doing so.

[Petrifictus]

I just wish there was less OOC hostility for the attempts bringing conflict and change to the world. Too often the comfortable and stagnant treat it as harrasment or griefing, going as far to ruin players and drive them off from the server.

Have met unhealthy ideas that anything new is bad and should be shunned away, or that we need to drive away someone evil aligned JUST IN CASE they try to do start elections, etc. BEFORE anything can happen, JUST TO BE SAFE. This way of thinking surfaced heavily when EE came out, some old well established players with big names treated idea of new players as threat, because they might bring change which is ”bad.”

[Baseili]

From what I've seen the problem appears to be choice, so how about we make them more visible?

What would be good would be unremovable presences of the various opposing alignments that are blatant, obvious and seen anywhere there is power to be held. Evil and Good, Lawful and Chaotic. Give them each a role to play within the everyday lives of the cities with their own boons and drawbacks in both policies and player access.

For example, a city that is highly Lawful would be authoritarian only allowing certain things to be traded, gods to be worshiped or bar movement from more Chaotic cities while being prone to demonstrations and slow to impose changes due to the bureaucracy.

A more Chaotic city would be more free in its restrictions and easy to adapt to changes but would harder to trade or be safe in due to lack of stability.

A Good city would provide for its people with taxes upon landowners/merchants but be rife for exploitation while creating a opening for neopotism and corruption.

An Evil city would tax those not currently in favour of the sitting government while creating openings for rebellion and powerplays while being rife with crime.

Neutral would gain no benefits and half of both penalities, so morally neutral would be fair taxes but would have neopotism and homelessness. Where socially neutral would be more suitably adaptive yet prone to crime and demonstrations.

Rough ideas in general, the one thing I would say is to make it so neither side can be swept away entirely.

[mash]

Full disclaimer: I have been on the server for three months, play in a large "good" faction, and have not made an evil toon on the server. I don't want to be dismissive of the experiences of other posters. This is just my perspective as I experienced it until now.

I am not going to go much into the "all settlements are dominated by good" argument. There is certainly some truth to it, which has to do with it being a simulated world that often doesn't reflect that being good comes at personal sacrifice while being evil will often make you more powerful/rich (but even in our world you do better if you hide your evil tendencies...). Yes, I would like for settlements to have a good reason not to banish e.g. Banites or some other evil faiths outright, but this will probably need some DM intervention and I will therefore exclude that for now. Instead, I would like to share my (limited) observations of evil characters getting ousted and exiled from all settlements. In the majority of the cases I personally experienced, involving exiled (or likely to be exiled) characters have done one or more of the following:

- Spotted as an animator/infernalist/abyssalist or continuously associating with one
- Continuously associating with a faction serving an evil deity which is in open war with several good factions
- Working together with drow
- Highway robbery, piracy and/or murder

If you want to play a character who does these kind of things, this is absolutely fine! But these are all considered capital crimes in all "good and neutral" settlements and you should not expect to go unnoticed for long. There is a reason why the crazy necromancers usually live secluded in a tower. Keeping Sibayad and Sencliff as shady neutral places where these characters can go and build a power base from is good and should possibly be even more encouraged.

Now, here are my thoughts on playing an evil character who is not exiled everywhere: Don't do capital crimes (except maybe very, very rarely) and distance yourself from characters who are known capital criminals. I have yet to see anyone getting exiled for petty theft, beating someone up (no killing!), blackmailing someone, being corrupt, being power hungry, being greedy, running a black market scheme etc.. In addition, be useful to (your) community (if only to make everyone look bad who points the finger at you). Don't antagonize good characters without a reason. Give the settlements some room to argue why they should be lenient in punishments for any crime you might commit. Maybe some have tried this already and it still didn't work, I cannot rule that out. However, so far I have seen the "nuclear" exile option only in cases touching the above. Almost certainly there have also been some bad cases over the years in which the big exile was unjustified - if so, I would love to hear of them.

[Petrifictus]

My gnome innkeeper was once treated as evil because I served coffee to Banenites who had done nothing wrong and kicked out paladins, who wanted to start a inn brawl with them because ”they are evil.”

[torugor]

Last week i met a character ingame who lost something like 10 healing potions i a pvp. When i asked him how costly it was he said it was a lot...but he has infinite resources at his disposal.

I hear some posts here i understand yea...years of game people found their spot on the sun.

Game mech allows us to have stuff. Game mech gives no way for us to loose stuff.

I heard ppl say that houses are kept with only one container because otherwise people will just keep more stuff in it. And that is a big issue.

I think the big issue is not allowing houses to be taken. Not allowing people to rob what was collected. Making it safe.

Again i have not problem with people owning more its realistic. I just dont like game mech preventing great stories of drama and tragedy to happen.

There is people who like to read romances. I like movies of suspense drama and action. Its up to the dm to decide if it is a romance and comedy only enviroment.

[Curve]

There's a lot of facets in the topic, and I'll bring up a few in brief form.

I have reached a point as a player, where I don't know how to contribute positively to the server. As in, there's a constant feeling that established structures will be impossible to shake, and craft anything ''new'', in a way that it creates a wider story and shifts the grid. I have played around different concepts, characters, and where ever I turn, or regardless what I do, I perceive same problems and face same obstacles. It is all to do with how entrenched groups and settlements are. I have said it many times in my discussions with various people (privately, I rarely chime in at forums) that the removal of Wharftown was a biggest nominator in making the server sot-so interesting and destroying a sense of changing environment where factions can make a difference and rally under varying banners, and characters being in the position to push for new narratives. I am uncomfortable seeing ''social rp'' take over surface, and the apparent safety everywhere is extremely demoralizing. I have recently been playing in Andunor, and Andunor incidentally suffers somewhat of the same issues; while there it is more compressed with lack of alternatives in the case a larger conflict would break out, and as such people are even further disinclined to go through the motions to initiate schemes to take over territories. Backlash would be huge, and it's a real concern for sake of player enjoyment no matter how tidily people try to do it. Civil wars are messy, inter-city conflicts can get messy, and this in turn forces UD vs surface conflict state which is, frankly, bland and tired. Alternatives however are sparse in how the setting is set up right now, as OP and some others in the thread wrote.

I am an advocate of nuclear option, and have been since introduction of Greyport, and now with the introduction of another castle, and the New City in the horizon. If the worry for breaking alliances and shaken status quo is so prevalent, and in part because of the settlement system and the kind of roleplay it encourages (stagnation, alliances that bring fire and flame onto those who do not agree and conform) -- execute a hard reset on all settlements/districts.

Bring all to level, and force competition over resources, gold, manpower, territory. I don't honestly think anything can fix the current situation unless all that's there right now is demolished. Chaos of the situation would immediately open up way more opportunities for everyone, than trying to break through the thick of current structures.

Blank slate all settlement resources, clear all settlement bank accounts. Factions and settlements that have been stockpiling without much of a fuss for years and years RL would be knocked down with the rest, and forced to build and focus to advocate for their own settlement's growth, and care less for their neighbors' problems. Only issue I can perceive is the impossibly rich characters involved with a settlement simply pouring gold in to negate the effect, but at the least it should leave a struggle to build city back up by other means. At the moment there's no need to do this, because everything is so ''established''. I think most players can agree resources and city management, all the numbers, is not great fun, but sitting upon a decade of resources is not very exciting either and do more harm than good.

I am not a great fan of the settlement system, and while Sibayad helps with some issues described in the thread, I think the last thing that should happen is to make it player governed. Expanding it would be great with more functions, but please, no buttons for players to push and control the place with.

Some of the dilemma is also embedded in the player culture which is tied to modern human ideals and consciousness, encouraging ''safe space'' and ''tolerance'' all over the IG playing field -- which is considered a civilized mindset and it has taken over said civilized spheres of Arelith settlements. It's the death of tension, and fantasy setting. We are not our characters. Let the characters be more greedy, more hateful, more confrontational, idealistic in form of zealotry, taking risks and breaking things, make them aggressively racist or otherwise driven by something that will make people stand against your characters (due what they represent and are, not solely because someone kidnapped your sweetheart for the third time). If the tolerance boogeyman and modern mindset would be gone from the setting, it might start to shift things along naturally but this is easier said than done. I can still hope!

(ps. tolerance plight manifests through good monsters and how it waters down the setting. pls move good monsters to greater award - or force good monsters to stay in UD to cause conflict there, instead of having teatimes with surfacer chums. at the moment it's not happening, and dealing with non monster monsters fallout and bigot outcries is not great)

I hope that the DEVs, DMs, and even players give this post the attention it deserves.

[Royal Blood]

Here is another issue if conflict is given greater mechanical power:

The server will be dictated by the most potent pvp builds and meta composition of factions. This is already true in some scenarios but is dulled because pvp doesn't get you overly far without a supporting narrative. I think of the advice my Drow used to give pre-war with other houses. There's a ground game that has to be played before you can wage war.

This is the same issue on the opposite spectrum. Risk aversion.

I think mechanically there is no way to solve this. It has to be up to the players to really change the tempo and be like good players over all. And all I could say on that is to be the change you want to be. And RP in a way that's an example to others.

Last,

I bailed on the surface. Maybe some sort of solution is needed to stir things up on the surface so that people who want conflict don't just bail. Andunor and the UD are ideal because I don't have the IRL to sit in the surface and wait for something to happen. Nor can I shake the feeling that trying to make something happen is more akin to hitting my head against a brick wall. I also feel like the introduction of the noble system further entrenched a problem that already existed but now has made it even more potent and unmovable

also, I think how easy it is to share information potentially hurts the ability for things to rise up on the surface

all you need is one suspect character to be constantly scrried
Eventually they're going to be caught doing something they shouldn't do
Then they're immediately questioned and promptly exiled.
there's no way around this though, if you're a settlement leader and you purposely neglect tools that you're disposal in order to allow things to flow you're going to get smashed for that

[The GrumpyCat]

Re more Mechanical Power with Conflict.

You're touching on this Royal Blood, but I'd add your two points (re PvPers getting more power which isn't /neccesarly/ good and also risk eversion...)

Right now if you die in PvP and get Bashed, the worst consquence is a) temp stat drain. b) a loss of a small amount of xp, now relitivly quickly regained and c) having to roleplay that loss.

These are pretty mild honestly. Yet we still get pcs who are tremendously risk averse, (which to be fair makes an amount of sense - taking death seriously and all) but also some (not always the same group) who get tremendously salty over dying/loosing.

Imagine how much more risk averse, and upset, people would be with enhanced mechanical penalities?

That's not to say that adding some more penalties is entirely a bad idea, but it would have to be very very carefully balenced.

all you need is one suspect character to be constantly scrried
Eventually they're going to be caught doing something they shouldn't do
Then they're immediately questioned and promptly exiled.
there's no way around this though, if you're a settlement leader and you purposely neglect tools that you're disposal in order to allow things to flow you're going to get smashed for that

I mean I think the limit to exiles is good in that it should disencourage exiles for little dicernable reason... but yes, this is a fair point.

I think one thing that may help... which has been suggested somewhere I'm sure... is an found/craftable item that works as a one off scry 'ward'. To make it more possible for people who are not abdurers, warders, to conduct with a little more secresy.

[torugor]

Death gives no one fear in arelith. You loose nothing. Death is supposed to be a big deal cause its the ultimate loss. To you and to others. You wont have fear of death if there is no permanent loss.

Best server i played had a total loss of itens and a perma death system for pvp . Each time i died on pvp there was a chance i would be perma deathed.

That prevent pks because they will be eventually hunted down.

Loosing itens on death gives permanence loss and fear.

Re more Mechanical Power with Conflict.

You're touching on this Royal Blood, but I'd add your two points (re PvPers getting more power which isn't /neccesarly/ good and also risk eversion...)

Right now if you die in PvP and get Bashed, the worst consquence is a) temp stat drain. b) a loss of a small amount of xp, now relitivly quickly regained and c) having to roleplay that loss.

These are pretty mild honestly. Yet we still get pcs who are tremendously risk averse, (which to be fair makes an amount of sense - taking death seriously and all) but also some (not always the same group) who get tremendously salty over dying/loosing.

Imagine how much more risk averse, and upset, people would be with enhanced mechanical penalities?

That's not to say that adding some more penalties is entirely a bad idea, but it would have to be very very carefully balenced.

all you need is one suspect character to be constantly scrried
Eventually they're going to be caught doing something they shouldn't do
Then they're immediately questioned and promptly exiled.
there's no way around this though, if you're a settlement leader and you purposely neglect tools that you're disposal in order to allow things to flow you're going to get smashed for that

I mean I think the limit to exiles is good in that it should disencourage exiles for little dicernable reason... but yes, this is a fair point.

I think one thing that may help... which has been suggested somewhere I'm sure... is an found/craftable item that works as a one off scry 'ward'. To make it more possible for people who are not abdurers, warders, to conduct with a little more secresy.

[AstralUniverse]

I have to agree with the OP that there's too much player agency with one currency - gold. Gold is easy. Gold is even easier with ooc buddies. Gold is no measure to RP, yet you buy suggybear castles with it and you 'buy' yourself agency on other characters and players with NO rp required with them. I never liked this system.

Over all I really liked reading all these posts. All of them. Makes me feel less alone about my views of the culture (which I'm very much a part of as well). Marsi's post in particular really nails it on how things are kept motionless and why so. I've been feeling the same way. I havent really managed to cut through the status quo on any character except if I played it 10 hours a day, became the faction leader myself. That's not a good solution. change shouldnt happen only from top to bottom. This is the result of too much player agency.

[-XXX-]

I mean I think the limit to exiles is good in that it should disencourage exiles for little dicernable reason... but yes, this is a fair point.

Players have found a way to get around the exile limit/tax with the pariah/persona non grata IG laws. That way they can PvP killbash any individual character that they don't like without any forewarning, effectively keeping them out of a settlement simply by maintaining a somewhat steady faction presence and without actually issuing the exile. This effectively gets around:

a) the interactive roleplay bit before exile - "we don't allow demon summoners, you've been spotted conjuring demons" *PvP killbash* "don't ever come back"
b) the exile tax/limit - all of the listed in a) happening without any formal exile or IG sentence being issued

...also essentially exploits the
c) faction PvP against settlements - a faction can attack an individual who has not been properly exiled, but if that individual brings along friends to even the stakes ~they~ are the ones who most likely get talked to by the DMs for a rule violation

^I really wish that the DM team would address this in some way.

I think one thing that may help... which has been suggested somewhere I'm sure... is an found/craftable item that works as a one off scry 'ward'. To make it more possible for people who are not abdurers, warders, to conduct with a little more secresy.

There is already a very straightforward, easily accessible (to everyone) means to protect yourself from scrying. TBH I'd have preferred your proposal to REPLACE it, but I fear that having both alongside the -ward feature would most likely make scrying virtually useless.

[The GrumpyCat]

I mean, IMO you arn't entirely wrong Torugor, and I think if we were building the server from the ground up, I'd actually kinda like to see more serious death penalities in a way (things like in Fixed level, where after 10 pvp deaths you were permadeathed)

But (and please read this folks before exploding at me) I don't think that the current arelith player base would appreciate or like that, in the majority. It'd be a massive status quo change. And I'm definatly not sure - in fact I'm very sure - it wouldn't help the situation at hand.

Another issue I wanted to touch on is that the phrase 'Social Rolplaying/roleplayers' is being thrown around. But I'm not sure that's a very useful phrase.

What /is/ this exactly? What do you define it as? Because the phrase seems to suggest 'anyone who's main character goal isn't murdering someone' Which is a silly idea.

I /think/ what people mean is pcs who persue social/romance/none conflict at the detriment to absolutly everything else. Who will not accept any form of story or conflict into their roleplay at all.

This seems a reasonble defnition, and I agree it can be problematic, but it honestly is only problematic when one of two things happens.

a) The players refuse to accept that whilst they may wish to persue a strictly none conflict story, others are not playing that game, and they loose their temper when any amount of external conflict is introduced to them.
And linked to that
b) when the players then work to expunge any form of conflict from their area of control, preventing other roleplayers from engaging in it.

Now this is a really murky area, because it bleeds into IC interests, bending roleplay, expectations of other players, ect ect ect - a real mess. But I still think it holds a little weight.

But again the issue comes up is that it's not actualy that easy to seperate and define 'social' roleplayers.

Let's use an example.

'Lucy is a pretty female human. She runs through a string of romances it seems, many of them rather drama-tastic. She practically never engages with PvP, or takes any political stances, though often jumps into bed with those who do (In a pg13 sense of course.)' Often for one reason or another, her paramors end up making really dumb decisions. She probably has a liking for stupid men.'

From the outside one might say 'wow, yeah, that's social roleplay in a nutshell. Ok. Let's tell the story in another way.

'Lucy is playing a high priestess of Lovitar. She drags in male characters, romancing them then working carefully to destroy not only their lives by her manipulations and gasslighting, but also to gain power in settlments and subtly spread pain, suffering and confusion. Seeing situations blow up out of controle, spreading fear, hatred, and disgust is her modus operandi, whilst all the time posing as a clueless courtesan.'

Ok I'd say that's a /lot/ more conflict driven. Hard to pull off perhaps, but definatly more of what people seem to want? Yet from the outside, both look the same.

This isn't to say that theres no problem with 'social rp' on this server. I dont' know, maybe there is? But I also think it's hard to neccesarly point it out and say 'this is what it is and it's always bad.'

[AstralUniverse]

Let's use an example.

'Lucy is a pretty female human. She runs through a string of romances it seems, many of them rather drama-tastic. She practically never engages with PvP, or takes any political stances, though often jumps into bed with those who do (In a pg13 sense of course.)' Often for one reason or another, her paramors end up making really dumb decisions. She probably has a liking for stupid men.'

From the outside one might say 'wow, yeah, that's social roleplay in a nutshell. Ok. Let's tell the story in another way.

'Lucy is playing a high priestess of Lovitar. She drags in male characters, romancing them then working carefully to destroy not only their lives by her manipulations and gasslighting, but also to gain power in settlments and subtly spread pain, suffering and confusion. Seeing situations blow up out of controle, spreading fear, hatred, and disgust is her modus operandi, whilst all the time posing as a clueless courtesan.'

Ok I'd say that's a /lot/ more conflict driven. Hard to pull off perhaps, but definatly more of what people seem to want? Yet from the outside, both look the same.

If they both look the same on the outside then the latter case is NOT any more conflict driven. What matters is what heppens in the interaction with other PCs, not what the player has in their own mind when writing down their concept.

[Flower Power]

I think it is pretty important to make the distinction that you can have players who create conflict and try to drive story arcs/stir the pot without ever engaging in PvP - I'd point to my (now retired) character Edmund Sorrel, the 30 Commoner Meme, as an example. I did a lot of plotting, backroom deals and negotiation as Ed. A lot of it. None of that can be deemed as "social RP" despite not having any PvP involved in it at all, because it revolved around creating some sort of conflict or narrative that people would have to grapple with - perhaps being taken out of their comfort zone or forced to create alliances of opportunity with people they probably really shouldn't have in retrospect.

Was Ed a terribly successful character? From an OOC standpoint, I'd say hell yes. From an IC standpoint, he ended up on the run from the city, but with the core of his legal reforms and additions to the city being rebranded, the credit for them taken by someone else, but remaining standing in more or less the same shape to this day - so that's a question that's up to the individual to decide.

He definitely lost, but that's okay. It's okay and good to lose sometimes. I just feel like there's a lot of players on Arelith who are uncomfortable or afraid of the concept of their character losing, so they've embraced (and forced onto others) rigid structures that insulate themselves from that possibility at the cost of the server's sense of dynamism.

[AstralUniverse]

I dont think it is possible to play a central political character in Cordor, commoner or not, and remain 'social' for long. As a politician you're involved in a lot of conflict that doesnt often end up in a blood bath and that's awesome and more evolving too. I mean, there's room for social RP. RP about arts and culture and history and what not. There's a lot of content in a fantasy game that isnt conflict driven and has it's place. It's the decoration of the setting. I think passing in a city street or in a bar without seeing any signs of romance around... sounds kinda dull to me. We do need some level of social RP in this setting, I feel. But the line is where it demotes conflict, that's the 'no no' imo.

[torugor]

I think if this change is for the best of the game in the long run you should consider it.

Currently i feel once you get to lvl 30 death gets meaningless. Mechanical wise there no more xp to loose cause you are on cap. Rpwise some characters like mine that is close to the deity...for me death is a win win. Either i go to kelemvors gates and return to arelith or go to the hall of warriors of tempus and serve sided to my deity. Death has no meaning.

And i see a lot of lvl 30 chars rolling. Man if u have a system for players to basically commit suicide with their characters you institucionalized that death has no meaning and life for those characters have no meaning neither. Conflict is part of what gives meaning for life. Fear of death as well.

So yes. I think a stronger death system is good. And you could start with Baby steps. Make ppl die and loose stuff from his inventory. Then when they get accostumed to that make them loose something of equipment.

Fear of death will come. You will see that people will not go to dangerous areas lightly. They will look for aid because even a lvl 30 cant hold big groups. Big groups means rp outside settlements. With stuff at stake. You will see people valuating their lives more. Give reason for action.

Then when you can consider perma death. And you will see ppl mourning the losses of their loved ones. And necros like my brother thinking twice before going out of sencliff.

I mean, IMO you arn't entirely wrong Torugor, and I think if we were building the server from the ground up, I'd actually kinda like to see more serious death penalities in a way (things like in Fixed level, where after 10 pvp deaths you were permadeathed)

But (and please read this folks before exploding at me) I don't think that the current arelith player base would appreciate or like that, in the majority. It'd be a massive status quo change. And I'm definatly not sure - in fact I'm very sure - it wouldn't help the situation at hand.

Another issue I wanted to touch on is that the phrase 'Social Rolplaying/roleplayers' is being thrown around. But I'm not sure that's a very useful phrase.

What /is/ this exactly? What do you define it as? Because the phrase seems to suggest 'anyone who's main character goal isn't murdering someone' Which is a silly idea.

I /think/ what people mean is pcs who persue social/romance/none conflict at the detriment to absolutly everything else. Who will not accept any form of story or conflict into their roleplay at all.

This seems a reasonble defnition, and I agree it can be problematic, but it honestly is only problematic when one of two things happens.

a) The players refuse to accept that whilst they may wish to persue a strictly none conflict story, others are not playing that game, and they loose their temper when any amount of external conflict is introduced to them.
And linked to that
b) when the players then work to expunge any form of conflict from their area of control, preventing other roleplayers from engaging in it.

Now this is a really murky area, because it bleeds into IC interests, bending roleplay, expectations of other players, ect ect ect - a real mess. But I still think it holds a little weight.

But again the issue comes up is that it's not actualy that easy to seperate and define 'social' roleplayers.

Let's use an example.

'Lucy is a pretty female human. She runs through a string of romances it seems, many of them rather drama-tastic. She practically never engages with PvP, or takes any political stances, though often jumps into bed with those who do (In a pg13 sense of course.)' Often for one reason or another, her paramors end up making really dumb decisions. She probably has a liking for stupid men.'

From the outside one might say 'wow, yeah, that's social roleplay in a nutshell. Ok. Let's tell the story in another way.

'Lucy is playing a high priestess of Lovitar. She drags in male characters, romancing them then working carefully to destroy not only their lives by her manipulations and gasslighting, but also to gain power in settlments and subtly spread pain, suffering and confusion. Seeing situations blow up out of controle, spreading fear, hatred, and disgust is her modus operandi, whilst all the time posing as a clueless courtesan.'

Ok I'd say that's a /lot/ more conflict driven. Hard to pull off perhaps, but definatly more of what people seem to want? Yet from the outside, both look the same.

This isn't to say that theres no problem with 'social rp' on this server. I dont' know, maybe there is? But I also think it's hard to neccesarly point it out and say 'this is what it is and it's always bad.'

[-XXX-]

stuff

Having death lead to more mechanical consequence would not only fail to present a viable solution to the general reluctance of players to engage in interactive conflict, but I'd actively contribute to making it worse.

[Wrips]

I pretty much share Royal Blood's feelings in their first post, after playing on the surface recently. With each successive surface character I make, I end up feeling less inclined to play there the next time. I often find myself dislocated from the general flow of the server, finding meaningful character interactions feel more difficult and inserting your character in the going-ons often end up going nowhere.

In the UD, I feel like the server is much more receptive, in general, things are more dynamic and while it suffers from the same issues that surface does, regarding the stakes and rewards of stirring up conflict, it's much easier to insert yourself on the general flow of the roleplay happening on the server. I find it much easier to start something there, even if eventually it won't shake the status-quo, it'll generate roleplay and create a tapestry which future actions can be modelled after, which is something I've experience myself. On the surface, however, I've struggled even with these first steps.