Feedback on one particular pvp rule

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

Its easier to just copy and paste a dm's explanation of said rule then try and paraphrase, because I will screw said paraphrase up without a doubt. So here we are;

DM Dionysus — 03/27/2021
Just some clarity since the topic came up this morning: you are allowed to fight in areas with NPCs. We may or may not have NPCs respond. You do not need to be deterred from fighting in front of guard NPCs, etc, but we absolutely do encourage it as good roleplay if you keep that in mind and it can come up in RPR evaluations if anyone is exceptionally silly about it. There are a few areas on the server where we're a bit more responsive about this, which is primarily the Hub that will have IC repercussions for fighting in (and you should report all situations anyway, so we can be aware of things)
Raids require approval and two weeks warning. Raid means you're killing PCs and NPCs. Groups of players, hostile, are allowed to go into settlements and attack PCs without getting raid approval. But so long as the groups aren't unreasonably large and aren't staying there unreasonably long. The group is expected to try and get our attention by pinging the dm channel once or twice, but we're not required to be there (and, also aren't killing NPCs).
This allowed PCs to go on rescue missions, etc.
Hope that clarifies it for anyone curious about the specifics.

Now to add a little more context, I asked on discord last night if people were allowed to roll into "base" areas (senliff, myon, cordor, ect) if they had three or less people so as to not qualify as a raid and start murdering folks as long as they don't kill npcs. I was linked to that clarification of the rules. But before I get into what's blatantly wrong with this rule, let me clarify a few things;

1) I was not involved in the pvp that inspired the question, nor did I have a stake in it. So, no, this is not me just being bitter because I lost in pvp.

2) While I certainly have had some opinions that go against the current pvp rules on the server over the last 4 or 5 years (primarily in conversations on discord), I have always quantified said opinions were about my personal preference. This is not that, this is about the integrity of the server's status as an RP server.

3) I am totally sympathetic to the concept of someone starting trouble and running back to a safe space, and how annoying that can be.

4) This is not an attack on anyone, including any players that use this rule to their advantage or the dms/admins/whoever decided on it. I just think its a huge mistake that needs to be rectified, and welcome any discussion that states the contrary.


So now that that's out of the way, let me get to why I think this is such a bad rule. I'm going to list it from what I consider the least important to the most important as best I can, but everyone is different and may find my order to be wonky. I tried is all I can say.

1) Everyone needs a break from all the pvp no matter how much they like it from time to time to just chill and RP. Sure, they can lock themselves up in their houses if they have one and hope the other side can't find a way in, but really that's not going to be any fun.

2) There is too many players that are addicted to the "thrill" of pvp on Arelith, and they aren't going to care about the nuance in the statement above by dio, because really...20 rpr, 40 rpr, they are still going to be level 30 in two weeks and fully geared for murder in a month. And I wouldn't be surprised if I overstated the time it takes them. That doesn't make them bad people, that's just the way they like to play. I tend to level pretty fast myself.

3) It's going to be impossible to ever have a server with this size and playerbase be 100% all about the roleplay and story, since players are going to do what players are going to do. But if the core of the game, the setting itself, doesn't adhere to that standard then you may as well just admit this is an arena server with dungeons and dm quests on the side. And npcs doing nothing while 3 people march into Cordor and murder someone no matter how legit the reasoning is is a complete failure in that regard.

So, to finish up, I can't point out a flaw without offering some sort of alternative on how to fix it. "It's not a problem unless you have a solution" is one of my favorite all time quotes, even if it isn't actually accurate by definition. My suggestions aren't even that different then what is, just minor tweaks to make the setting feel more alive.

1) any attack in a "base" area needs dm supervision. I've been using the term base because some areas like sencliff are debatable in their status as a settlement.

2) if you succeed on the attack even with the npcs reacting however, using the exile system the npcs will attack on sight for a year (ig) after that. If you loose nothing happens. Exceptions to this are plausible in certain areas and certain situations. For an easy example if a pirate kills another pirate on the docks of sencliff none of the npcs are going to care. That changes drastically when cordor or myon or whoever from the outside marches in.

Thanks for reading, and I really hope no one takes offense to anything I wrote. I think I did a good job on that front, but I admit I don't have much of a 21st century sensibility. Please keep it about the rule and don't bring up any incidents that might call someone out.

[AstralUniverse]

Everyone needs a break from all the pvp no matter how much they like it from time to time to just chill and RP. Sure, they can lock themselves up in their houses if they have one and hope the other side can't find a way in, but really that's not going to be any fun.

Not that you were talking just about yourself but let me ask you... Do you really find yourself forced into "hostile" RPs which lead to pvp all that often? Unless you're walking around on the surface with your mummies restless and angry, I think pvp is mostly very avoidable in this server. I wouldnt call that a major issue.

There is too many players that are addicted to the "thrill" of pvp on Arelith, and they aren't going to care about the nuance in the statement above by dio, because really...20 rpr, 40 rpr, they are still going to be level 30 in two weeks and fully geared for murder in a month. And I wouldn't be surprised if I overstated the time it takes them. That doesn't make them bad people, that's just the way they like to play. I tend to level pretty fast myself.

Some people like pvp more than others. This isnt new and this isnt a problem on it's own. If people RP bad because of reasons X-Y-Z, then report them and their RPR or access to locked classes will be evaluated.

It's going to be impossible to ever have a server with this size and playerbase be 100% all about the roleplay and story, since players are going to do what players are going to do. But if the core of the game, the setting itself, doesn't adhere to that standard then you may as well just admit this is an arena server with dungeons and dm quests on the side. And npcs doing nothing while 3 people march into Cordor and murder someone no matter how legit the reasoning is is a complete failure in that regard.

Again, I dont see a problem here. There are game limitations. NPCs cannot be animated at all times by DMs. You just gotta let some things slide and focus on what you CAN effect. Like sure, it looks bad if someone stabs someone else in front of 3 NPC guards but again, just report bad RP if you think you should and let the DMs do their role.

Over all, I dont think this rule is so bad and I dont like your suggestions because they limit this (admittedly complicated) avenue of RP more than necessary.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

Thanks for reading and your feedback, though I am a bit confused by some of your responses.

Your first point, no, I rarely get into pvp and I rarely play the type of characters people would want to go into a settlement and kill. But firstly, not everything has to be about personal experience. Second, nothing in my post had anything to do with the validity of killing people because they had their dead out or whatever. I also wasn't claiming this was a problem that was constantly happening, I am just saying that when it does its jarring to the setting itself.

Your second point, I took painstaking efforts to not make it sound like I hate pvp, because I do not. I guess i failed there or something. But again, this has to do with the sanctity of the setting on an rp server, and nothing to do with whether I like pvp or not. So yeah, its totally cool to like to pvp, we agree there.

Your third point, you are right, there are just some things you have to roll with. This is not one of them. You don't have to go into Myon right now and kill that elf you hate, you can wait for a dm. And with all the new dms we have now, I bet there has to be at least a few of them (as well as old ones) who would love to play along with something like this. But the most confusing thing you said here was that this was making rp more difficult, which is odd because every explanation I got of these rules over the last 24 hours or so basically said it was a way to not let people hide behind npcs after stirring the pot. Which i get, I just don't think its worth tainting the setting over.

As an add on to the first bit, if I did play that sort of character I know I would still want to roleplay here and there even if my life was all about being hunted.

[xanrael]

I disagree that people need a safe space from PvP to "chill and RP". PvP should be part of RP and if it is not then it can be reported as griefing.

I don't see anything in that message that suggests Rule #2 is negated (Rules of Engagement). Also that interaction has be be done with each person (or group of people) so having interacted with Tom they can't then run halfway across the zone to an unrelated and clueless Bob and gank them without a new interaction.

Edit: This isn't specific to this post, but more of a general statement from what I've seen over the past couple of years. I'm not a fan of splitting up Arelith into a MMO theme-park where you have various rides/activities like RP/PvP/Writs/etc. I think one can miss out on some good opportunities if you just want to do one activity to the exclusion of others for a longer play session.

[AstralUniverse]

ou don't have to go into Myon right now and kill that elf you hate, you can wait for a dm.

You should do what your character should do and role with that. You dont need to wait for a DM if you are going alone into Myon or if you bring only a couple of friends for back up. it *can* be a clean and fun pvp. No DM needed in that scale. you are already taking a pretty huge risk when you go low on numbers to kill a dude inside their city.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

You should do what your character should do and role with that.

More then likely, what my character would do is say "hey, there are a bunch of these guys with swords all over bendir, but we really want to get timmy. We need a good plan" and then tell some of my friends to distract the guards while the rest of my friends and I get timmy or something.. What -I- would do is know that timmy is likely in bendir, know that no one else from bendir is on, or even worse know that they are on but they hate timmy too because they are my friends from my last character, and those guys with swords aren't going to do anything anyways.

This is exactly the thing I am trying to fix here.

[Nitro]

I've seen a lot of people do extreme badmouthing, antagonizing, and other buggery before withdrawing to the shadovar outpost because they thought it was a safe no-pvp area that they could hang out in to avoid retribution (Spoiler, it's not and they couldn't). That's what having safe-zones leads to, people using them to escape the consequences of their own actions. If Billy the Necromongler pisses off all of Brog by animating all their ancient thanes and forcing them to do the thriller dance he shouldn't be safe for the next 4-12 hours just because the angry dwarves literally can't get him without rousing a DM just because he withdrew to a "safe" area where he can freely brag to anyone going through about what spineless cuckolds the people he just antagonized are for being unable to get him.

If people want to hang out in "safe" areas and avoid PvP, they can lock themselves in a quarter and stop answering the door. Isolation isn't fun but that's the price to pay for (almost) absolute safety.

[TooManyPotatoes]

If a player or players feel like they are being unfairly hunted repeatedly in "safe" areas they are within their rights to report it. The DMs recognise that no rule can be perfect and apply to all situations. The be nice rule is there for a reason.

I personally think PvP is too easy to avoid. My last two characters have hit level 30 without a single incidence of PvP, despite many many potential opportunities. A minority of the server seems to be really bad at de-escalation.

[The Rambling Midget]

I personally think PvP is too easy to avoid.

It kinda has to be, though. Making PvP more difficult to avoid is a double edged sword. Yes, you get more action, but the majority of that action is likely to be between characters of vastly differing levels, resulting in a lot of lowbie stomping and driving players away. And unless the staff finally offers some clear guidance on the meaning of death, it essentially becomes a battle royale for those who have decided to interpret it as "ouch" and a 5 minute timeout.

I'd consider that a lateral move, at best. There are a lot of changes that need to be made before more open PvP can serve as an improvement.

[The GrumpyCat]

I see your points, and I do somewhat appreciate them. But the problem that comes with them is that this can be abused.

Others have pointed at this already - but some sitatuions that immedatly come about are...

a) It means your pc can be endlessly taunted by folk, and be utterly unable to do anything about it unless there is a DM on.

b) It means 'rescues' can not occur - at least not in any fashion - until a DM is about

c) It means that aspects of rp that come across as controvertial cannot be responded to .
(E.g. - A man standing in the middle of Cordor yelling 'KING EDWARD IS A FRAUD AND A MONSTER! DOWN WITH KING EDWARD! LETS KILL HIM! THE CHANCELLOR IS AN INFERNALIST WHO KISSES GOATS! DOWN WITH THE CHANCELLOR! DOWN WITH THE INSTITUTION!')
And the guard are utterly unable to do anything about it.

d) Things like pickpocketing and the like become something one also cannot respond to. This could be fixed with a seperate ruling I'll admit however. But it adds more complexity to the situation.

e) Again a little linked to C - but this doesn't allow for emoted situation. To use another example:
'I never loved you!' *He proclaims proudly* 'I just wanted you for your body!'
'How dare you!' *She shrieks and attmepts to slap him*
*He is slapped and but just grins, then winds his arm back to punch her in the face in return*
*She is punched and rheels back from it, gasping*
*He follows through with another punch to the gut if he can*
*The punch lands and she doubles over, coughing and wheezing*
*He kicks out at her knees trying to make her fall to the ground*
*The woman falls down, curling up in a ball and wheeping pitiously*
*He laughs and lays into her, kicking and stomping on her*

Imagine seeing the above as an onlooker and being /absolutly helpless/ to intervene. Now I'll add that IMO the above does push the T rating a bit - and I'd also add I'd hope that in such a situation both parties would be fine with intervention in emote form from others. But these things are counting a lot on the behaviour of others. And in less extreme cases, it can still make people feel extremely powerless. (Please note also under your rules, this would mean that even if Dm supervision was gotten for someone to step in and physuically attack the guy who's emoting beating a woman to death - said person - the rescuer- might well be the one exiled from the area... does that seem right?)

f) In cases of monsters entering settlments - I mean they really shouldn't be unless they're disguised and such. But if monsters do enter settlments, and there's no DM around... or even if they're doing so in a legitimatly sneaky way - they can't actually be dealt with. To an extent the same is true with Andunor - I know we've said a bit about allowing surfacers some leeway down there. But by the same measure we don't actually want 5 Paladins of Torm moseying on down there, standing in the middle of Devils Table and yelling 'Hail Torm! Hail Tyr! Hail Illmatur! You're all bound for the Hells! Lolth is a weakling! Lolth is dumb! Lolth is impotent! Lolth is the worst! We piss on Lolth's shrines! hahahaha!' - and as a drow being utterly and completely unable to do anything about it.

G) What about assassinatins? If an assassin creeps after their mark and their mark is alone - and has done the prior rp within 24 hours (and the mark is on the assassins list) they're within their rights to attempt a kill without having to also get a DM on line.

And the answer to all the above I suppose is 'ask the Dms to deal with it.' And that's fair to an extent... but asking us to personally judge every single case of pvp and none pvp conflict on the server is... it's frankly too much. It was a bit too much under the old raid rules - which just said that groupos of a certain number shouldn't start pvp in settlments.
A laudable idea -but a group of say five could come into a place with /no desire for conflict/ and conflict could happen anyway - and then we'd have to sort through that.
Or a group of one or two people could start a conflict - deliberatly - and then three or four join in on their side making it a 'raid' suddenly.

And that's not even touching on the accusations of 'DM Bias' that would fly around even more - if we were asked to ajudicate every. Single. Case. of. Conflict. Pvp or not which is kinda in effect what a bit of the above is.

We have over 2000 players - around 200 on at any time - and around 20 Dms. Even if we had 200 Dms I don't know I'd feel comfortable saying we could oversee all pvp.

[Zavandar]

1) nobody is entitled to a safe space or to be left alone. If you want a break from pvp and dont think being behind a locked door is enough safety, dont log on. Report things you feel cross into griefer territory and break Be Nice, and remember that actions have consequences

2) "too many players" liking pvp is entirely subjective. Regarsless, rpr evaluations are often the first step towards heavier punishments if bad behavior continues. I've never seen a DM act like they are fond of pvp for pvp's sake.

3) this isnt an arena server and won't become one because some people attacked someone in a settlement. Refer to 1.

Regarding solutions:

1) yeah waiting for dm supervision for everything isnt feasible or necessary. If something feels fishy, report it. I legit recommend playing with video capture software it keeps people honest

2) also not feasible because it seriously lacks nuance. Fighting in settlements can be justified in several ways, many of them both lawful and good

EDIT
I don't play this game with -notells on but I rarely ever message people. I dont like to coordinate ooc or expect people to comply with my ooc wishes or accommodate my sensibilities. I play within the rules and expect others to do the same and if i feel like the game itself might not be enjoyable to play because of my mood or circumstances i just dont get on. That is much more reasonable than expecting the server to cater to me

I expand on this point because I think it is the crux of the issue. Pvp happens and the rules are reasonable. Expecting safe spaces is trying to make this server into something it's not

[Spriggan Bride]

I think a lot of the complaints about "safe RP" being violated that I've ever seen comes from attackers targeting events, in particular in ways that cut off any other planning or RP involved.

Bendir for example is endlessly a punching bag for underdark raids. That's not a complaint, it's fun a lot of the time. If you have nothing going on and go hang out in Bendir at the right time of day there's a really good chance you'll see some action sooner or later. That's good and part of Arelith culture.

However if Bendir has some event going on that the players put a lot of time into preparing for, and you want to raid because you know a lot of folks will be there-- well, expect some complaints if you make the preparations feel like all their efforts were pointless, especially if your raid is just for the sake of action or general antagonism and not part of some current ongoing story.

Should weddings have an expectation of safety? Of course not! But at the same time, if you're going to attack a wedding you could let the ceremony happen then attack the after party. Easier said than done, I know, but it's something to consider and we do have ways to scry and scout to make this possible.

I just used Bendir because it's a place I know and have experienced raids from both sides there, this isn't targeting anyone specifically or any incident in recent memory. I've seen underdark events that were planned and players were excited about then PVP broke out before they had a chance to get going as well. And I am certainly not saying don't ever attack an event-- but I am saying it's a better experience (and story) for all if you can figure out how to time it right and read the room.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

I want to address grumpy's response piece by piece, because ultimately she is one of the people I am trying to convince here (sorry guys). but I do want to talk about the recurring theme by many of your responses. The concept that "people should have no safe space from rp".

1) It's not the main premise of my point, it was just a small point I made and ranked third among the three points I made regarding that small part of what I was talking about. The premise was PvP should not trump the sanctity of the setting, even if its the main part of what arelith conflict comes down to.

2) We are talking about what, 8 maps total where an individual from x can be safe including most public interiors? maybe up to 15 in the bigger cities? And if they are never leaving those areas, what in the world are they doing to inspire the need to go in and slaughter them while completely ignoring the setting?

3) Even if you ignore points 1 and 2, which seems likely based on the short history of this thread, by saying no one should have a "safe space from PvP" you are also essentially saying once you get into a disagreement with someone that would lead to pvp, that's all the game is now for that character. Hunt and be hunted. If that's the intended mentality, is it any wonder we don't have many if any cool surface villains? Or that people rush their character up to 30 and max gear before they ever stick their neck out?

And you are right Zav, I doubt many if any of the dms like to see pvp for the sake of pvp. I'm sure most if not all want us to respect the setting even when they are not around. Fixing this rule is an easy way to move us in at least the second half of that's direction.

I'll respond to you later grumpy, I just got my second vaccination shot so my arm is sore making typing difficult. If I can't convince you after that, I promise I will shut up about it.

[Zavandar]

you are also essentially saying once you get into a disagreement with someone that would lead to pvp, that's all the game is now for that character. Hunt and be hunted. If that's the intended mentality, is it any wonder we don't have many if any cool surface villains? Or that people rush their character up to 30 and max gear before they ever stick their neck out?

this hasn't been said. plenty of people have disagreements right now that dont end in that dynamic.

Saying that there aren't many if any cool surface villains is also kind of not nice. Many could just exist covertly (which makes sense) and even overt ones exist and have existed in the past with the rules as they are. I think a lot of evil RPers suffer from entitlement issues too and dont go about their villainy very intelligently; conversely, I've seen a lot of lowbie evil work out just fine.

This leads to something that I have to keep saying lately. Dont disparage the "must win" mentality when you cater to it.

[xanrael]

... you are also essentially saying once you get into a disagreement with someone that would lead to pvp, that's all the game is now for that character. Hunt and be hunted. If that's the intended mentality, is it any wonder we don't have many if any cool surface villains? Or that people rush their character up to 30 and max gear before they ever stick their neck out?

I think the ideal in this case is after that PvP then things enter a cooling off period. Sadly what can happen is the loser of the fight has a "nah uh, it wasn't a true loss because x reason so I'm going to double down" mentality. If a disagreement happens, the loser offers some amount of capitulation, and then the winner keeps hitting them every day with no new stimulus for it probably can be reported to the DMs for griefing.

[The GrumpyCat]

I hope you feel better soon BSV, and I look forward to your response. I hope you don't think me rude if I add a couple of things extra - if only to add to my response..

2) We are talking about what, 8 maps total where an individual from x can be safe including most public interiors? maybe up to 15 in the bigger cities? And if they are never leaving those areas, what in the world are they doing to inspire the need to go in and slaughter them while completely ignoring the setting?

The thing is those areas are where the majority of rp/folk hang out. There's a reason people hate being exiled from places - because they're exiled from rp hubs. If we expect most pvp to come from rp - it is those areas that are - ironically - more likely to encounter pvp. And at least in the small scale I really don't have any issue with it at all.

To that line - your proposed rule about the winner in pvp being exiled from the settlment from a year... To be honest? Under that rule if someone attacked me in a settlment I would DEFINATLY not fight back. I'd be of the opinion it is 100X better to have my pc killed, - (and then respawn with a bit of rp) than have them exiled for... I think three RL months now. In that way I can very much see this being weaponized. Don't like someone living in your settlment? Attack them. Then stop fighting and let them kill you. WIN! Its a far, far, far, far meaningful victory than simply dying.

The big over all theme of why I dislike this idea though I think is this:

My favorite thing about Arelith, or at least one of my favorite things - is that to have a fun, interesting and engaging character arc you in no way really need a DM. Players have the tools, the impetus and are encouraged to make plots for those around them and, some of the time, plots involve conflict. And sometimes conflict has to be resolved via mechanical actions such as pvp.

Am I advocating that all players need to be PvP hounds? Absolutly not! Honestly I would genuinly love to see a little less pvp, and I wouldn't even be against one or two more neutral spaces. But to take this very valuble tool of storytelling away from independent player use would neuter the server terribly, create a very unrealistic environement and give DMs a LOT of work.

I look forward to reading your counter arguments because I'll be honest, this is something I'm very deeply cynical of.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

Alright Grumpy, so...the majority of your responses I think come down to a few misunderstandings on what I am saying, two of which are my fault after rereading my post and one of which likely results in a kneejerk reaction to any conversation discussing the state of pvp, even one as nuanced as this was intended to be.

1) The most important, I only meant in situations where the npcs doing nothing makes 0 sense. Like elves porting in to sencliff and murdering pirates, or Orogs heading into Cordor to kill people. So anything that would be handled by the guard, of course they don't need a dm. Someone gets caught pickpocketing, I guess murder them if thats the Arelith way. I would actually expand guard powers personally, since they are really nothing more then a player faction with a built in target on their head, but that's another conversation. When I was writing the initial post it was all clear in my head, and while I think that's still what it says I can see how I could have been more apparent on that aspect.

2) I should have said "as a base idea" when I offered new rules. This is meant to be feedback, like my idea, hate my idea, use some of it and toss the rest away.. That's all on you. I was more trying to convey "something has to change, here's my idea".

3) I don't dislike pvp, or people who like to pvp. I am currently playing a character that by definition will likely get into a lot of it, and I am looking forward to spanking folks. I can understand why you think I do since any OP discussing pvp rules tends to get met with a sea of "you just don't like pvp!" arguments, probably because its easier then debating the actual point, so it's an easy mistake to make. But I do really like pvp. I just think the setting and the story are more important then going to get that guy you hate exactly when you want whenever you want.

As for the specific lines I wanted to address;

b) It means 'rescues' can not occur - at least not in any fashion - until a DM is about

G) What about assassinatins? If an assassin creeps after their mark and their mark is alone - and has done the prior rp within 24 hours (and the mark is on the assassins list) they're within their rights to attempt a kill without having to also get a DM on line.

I'll put these two together because I can see them both being a slight hiccup. I'm not a big fan of super ninja rescue missions from a story perspective, but I can see why they might be needed from time to time and there is no dm about. And while most people that have a target on their head do not tend to stay in a city where they are safe, I could see it happening from time to time with a chancellor or something. Then again, shouldn't killing a chancellor be hard?

A laudable idea -but a group of say five could come into a place with /no desire for conflict/ and conflict could happen anyway - and then we'd have to sort through that.

I mean, if peaceful elves go into cordor and cordor picks a fight and gets trounced, that's sort of on them. It does still have the effect of the npcs probably not acting like they should, but this is just something that can't be avoided.

Or a group of one or two people could start a conflict - deliberatly - and then three or four join in on their side making it a 'raid' suddenly.

Maybe I didn't get this one, because this seems like an issue under the current rules that would be eliminated with needing a dm no matter the group size.

And that's not even touching on the accusations of 'DM Bias' that would fly around even more - if we were asked to ajudicate every. Single. Case. of. Conflict. Pvp or not which is kinda in effect what a bit of the above is.

Of course this should always be a concern, but I would argue that the way the rule is written there is more risk of it now then their would be if it played out with a dm if you are handing out rpr deductions for some and not for others.

And the answer to all the above I suppose is 'ask the Dms to deal with it.' And that's fair to an extent... but asking us to personally judge every single case of pvp and none pvp conflict on the server is... it's frankly too much. It was a bit too much under the old raid rules - which just said that groupos of a certain number shouldn't start pvp in settlments.

I already touched on this in my explanation of what I got wrong in my OP, but it deserves a repeat. I'm talking about a very small subset of pvp, one that you might even be able to play here for 5 years and never see as long as you never play a pirate. It also seems like a super fun thing for a DM to play along with, especially if the players put real thought into it. I don't think this is the issue you are making it out to be.

My favorite thing about Arelith, or at least one of my favorite things - is that to have a fun, interesting and engaging character arc you in no way really need a DM. Players have the tools, the impetus and are encouraged to make plots for those around them and, some of the time, plots involve conflict. And sometimes conflict has to be resolved via mechanical actions such as pvp.

All of this I very much agree with. Based on conversations we have had and things you have written I very much think that when it comes to what we like in a NWN server we are two peas in the same pod. I'm sure there is some variance here and there, but its so close I can't think of any off the top of my head. But while I totally get wanting to go get that pirate now and not being able to find a dm is a bummer, I don't think its worth giving up the sanctity of the setting over. Sometimes people just get away. And really, it could be worse, it could be that they just stop logging on. I played through a situation like that, and it would have been sooo much better if we had just never caught him.

Anyways, that's my pitch. I'm sure little snippets here and there will be quoted out of context and argued against, but I was comfortable enough that you would at least give it a solid read to spend the last two hours writing it. Either way, as promised I am going to shut up about now. And thanks for the well wishes, so far so good but they say the second day after your second shot is when you are likely to really feel blah.

[garrbear758]

I’ve played on servers with consensual pvp, and it’s awful. People will get away with a lot more because they know there are zero repercussions. It’s a big detriment to good rp. Having consequences to your action is necessary to make good conflict rp work. It doesn’t always have to end in pvp, but the risk of it helps make your characters choices rooted somewhere in reality. Even one safe space is too much. With that said, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree here.

[Flower Power]

I feel like the reminder would read a lot better if it instead boiled down to:

1) A requirement, rather than an encouragement, that you ping the DM channel in advance of premediated PvP in a city (e.g., a gank squad or individual going in to murder several specific (or random) people, or your brave ninja rescue team heading in to spring someone from jail,) still lacking a requirement for the DM team to actually respond - just so that it shows up in the logs and that you're giving any present DMs the option of stepping in. Instead of just the 'expectation' that it be done.

2) The expectation of handling all of this tastefully was more firmly laid out, with a more strongly worded emphasis on the fact that players who are abusive of this level of trust being put in them by the team will get slapped if they go ahead and be an utter cheeseball about all of it.

Because I've seen a fair bit of fun and enjoyable PvP happen inside of settlements - but I've seen a lot more stupid dickery happen too.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

I’ve played on servers with consensual pvp, and it’s awful. People will get away with a lot more because they know there are zero repercussions. It’s a big detriment to good rp. Having consequences to your action is necessary to make good conflict rp work. It doesn’t always have to end in pvp, but the risk of it helps make your characters choices rooted somewhere in reality. Even one safe space is too much. With that said, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree here.

I'm breaking my promise to shut up, because I am genuinely curious for an elaboration here. I've disagreed with you a few times here and there, but i know you are a smart dude that thinks stuff out, so there has to be more then what you wrote. Because I am not suggesting consensual pvp, or even safe spaces really. I just want to make it a bit harder then strolling into what would realistically be hostile territory and killing with ease, especially when you have enough occ information from the player list to tell you how hard its going to be. I'm not accusing anyone of doing that or saying everyone does, but if you can do something someone will eventually.

Also, it seems like all of the arguments against even a slightly safer area amount to "we can't let people get away". Which to me comes across as "if you loose at pvp, its when bad things happen to good adventurers. When you get outwitted in an election or something, its when bad things happen to good adventurers. But if there is even a small delay in me administering my pvp justice, that's a bridge too far."

And now I am shutting up.

[The GrumpyCat]

I feel like the reminder would read a lot better if it instead boiled down to:

1) A requirement, rather than an encouragement, that you ping the DM channel in advance of premediated PvP in a city (e.g., a gank squad or individual going in to murder several specific (or random) people, or your brave ninja rescue team heading in to spring someone from jail,) still lacking a requirement for the DM team to actually respond - just so that it shows up in the logs and that you're giving any present DMs the option of stepping in. Instead of just the 'expectation' that it be done.

2) The expectation of handling all of this tastefully was more firmly laid out, with a more strongly worded emphasis on the fact that players who are abusive of this level of trust being put in them by the team will get slapped if they go ahead and be an utter cheeseball about all of it.

Because I've seen a fair bit of fun and enjoyable PvP happen inside of settlements - but I've seen a lot more stupid dickery happen too.

These suggestions arn't bad. Especialy the last one. I want to be a bit gentle with the first because I know that often PvP happens not because folk have entered a settlment seeking it - but because it just /happens/ and I don't want to give the suggestion that if it's sprung on someone they'll end up punished for it... Though I will say if we have groups/folk that are repeatedly pvping in settlments without even trying to warn the DM team - they will get slapped.

But let's go back to BSV's points. And the big problem is this:

1) The most important, I only meant in situations where the npcs doing nothing makes 0 sense.

So - there's a whole, very valid, point to be made about actual, real, proper 'raids' (large groups of enemies going in and attacking folk) - then... your suggestions make an amount of sense. But I think only in cases where that is absoluly the utter most black/white/obvious thing that's happening. In your case of a group of Orogs attacking Cordor or whatever -yes. Maybe.

But.

The problem is a lot of raids - or a lot situations - simply arn't that. Even though they could appear as such.
And further more - it's honestly difficult to judge what the npcs would do and people tend to express their own expecations on NPCs., when they shouldn't.

This is why the old raid ruling was such a pain.

To use some examples.

Example 1

The elves hear that one of their kindred has been captured by Drow! They send three of their best sneaks down to find out what's happening. They sneak into the slave pits and watch - But they're spotted! A fight breaks out! The elf prisoner aids them (she was raised with consent so the 24 hour rule was wavered) The elves though luck, and skill - are victorious! Afterwards we get reports. WHY DID YOU ALLOW MYON TO RAID ANDUNOR? THESE PCS TOTTALY IGNORED THE NPCS!

Example 2

Two Banites walk into Brogendenstein after a fun time adventuring in the spires! They have three others with them, who are not Banites but enjoyed the hunt none the less. A dwarf of brogendenstein stops them. 'Oye Banites! Get out of here! We do not welcome you!' The Banites refuse, the dwarf insists. PvP breaks out.

Is this ignoring npcs? Would the npcs intervene? If we think they would, then does this mean anyone who is a Banite is banned? Do the npcs even know? Would the npcs ALWAYS side with the Dwarven PCs? Are they always behelden to the thane? If we say so doesn't this open up huge areas of abuse? [/quote]

Example 3

An assassin goes after the chancllor. They sneak after him as he's just about to enter the barracks - whilst there are few people around and stab him! There is an NPC guard around near by. This is later complained to us as ignoring npcs. But the guard in question is actually lawful evil. And, even if a DM was around at the time, they would have happily taken a bribe to look the other way. Further more - npc guards arn't that powerful. Not indivdually. Most npcs arn't. So the next question to ask is - would a guard ever really get involved anyway? Would he risk his life to stop it? And if he did - he probably wouldn't have been able to.

So the problem we have is the reasons for the pvp vary a lot - often pvp isn't even desired but happens anyway - especialy where there are lots of people around.

Further more guessing what the npcs would do isn't always easy. And past a certain point, I don't want NPCs deciding every minutea of what pcs do in the game.

[FallenDabus]

Spell Sequencers for Guards!
One option to improve (and I mean improve, not solve) is to use the spell sequencer mechanic. With this, a settlement can now issue Spell Sequencers to its guards. These guards need to be citizens and these items only work within certain areas. For Cordor, it would be the areas within the city walls. This is a pricy upgrade for a settlement, as each issued spell sequencer costs the settlement a little bit more.

It is worth it though. Once activated, after an ingame hour (20 rl minutes) or at a rest all wards are stripped off the character by the sequencer item.

These spell sequencers can store 10 defensive buffs that all are immediately "cast" if the sequencer is used. So you can put on something like: haste, freedom, deathward, clarity, barkskin, bulls strength, bears endurance, negative energy protection, imp invisibility and true sight.

What this item basically provides is an immediate buff-up for guards. It may not be a complete list of buffs, but a sizable one that they can no longer be as easily steamrolled through an ambush.

What this little item would alter is the current reality that 99% of the time a group of 4 well-buffed attackers can steamroll a much bigger defensive force, and then easily make an escape.

It is really important that these items would be attached to citizenship and only work within that city, to cut down on them being exploited. Could even attach a script that prevents more than six spell sequencers to be activated within 10 in-game minutes (around 3rl min) in a given city.

[Good Character]

Spell Sequencers for Guards!
One option to improve (and I mean improve, not solve) is to use the spell sequencer mechanic. With this, a settlement can now issue Spell Sequencers to its guards. These guards need to be citizens and these items only work within certain areas. For Cordor, it would be the areas within the city walls. This is a pricy upgrade for a settlement, as each issued spell sequencer costs the settlement a little bit more.

It is worth it though. Once activated, after an ingame hour (20 rl minutes) or at a rest all wards are stripped off the character by the sequencer item.

These spell sequencers can store 10 defensive buffs that all are immediately "cast" if the sequencer is used. So you can put on something like: haste, freedom, deathward, clarity, barkskin, bulls strength, bears endurance, negative energy protection, imp invisibility and true sight.

What this item basically provides is an immediate buff-up for guards. It may not be a complete list of buffs, but a sizable one that they can no longer be as easily steamrolled through an ambush.

What this little item would alter is the current reality that 99% of the time a group of 4 well-buffed attackers can steamroll a much bigger defensive force, and then easily make an escape.

It is really important that these items would be attached to citizenship and only work within that city, to cut down on them being exploited. Could even attach a script that prevents more than six spell sequencers to be activated within 10 in-game minutes (around 3rl min) in a given city.

Beyond the PvP logistics that need to be thought out for this, I can see this working with the server's current climate (i.e. lack of PC guards). It would absolutely need to be latched to a specific point that takes time to get to, however. My immediate concern is when there are a lot of PC guards. Regardless, I can see this being a boon more than a negative; it stops murderhobos from steamrolling mundane PC guards on their own turf, and encourages roleplay to influence guards.

[Zavandar]

what is stopping the guards from being prepared?

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

While I am pretty sure we are just about done here, since if my last post didn't convince I expect nothing will, I do want to respond to your examples just because they seem like questions.

Example one, while i think it would be cool to have a dm on that mission, if its just a stealth mission then nothing there needs a dm. Drow attacking elves in the underdark makes sense. If the elves end up winning, then yeah you have that awkward moment where the npcs are standing around watching, but as I said in my last response to you that's on the drow for picking a fight. It would go under can't be helped.

Example two, that would depend on the laws of Brogendenstein really. If they say "No bannites" then why are the bannite players ignoring the setting? If its just some dwarf picking a fight, see the answer above. Maybe the dwarf gets some ic consequences down the line from whoever is in charge of the laws (since he attacked peaceful visitors) but it does make sense that the dwarves wouldn't jump in unless he was loosing, and while not opitimal, again, that's on him.

Example three, the bannite thing doesn't work. Bannites tend to respect law and order, even if its tyrannical, so the guard is not going to just sit there and watch. So I will just switch it to a greedy guard who hates his job and offers to take a pay off (or even better the assasssin takes initiative and pays him off prior), or a coward who doesn't want to get involved, or whatever. I think these are all perfectly plausible outcomes, as long as the pc guards or something can take it out on said npcs after the fact and he's not just left standing there waiting to blow off his duties the next time. The idea isn't necessarily to make things harder on the aggressor in the situations I am talking about, just to make them have a plan going in that's more then "Lets go to sencliff and kill Billy the Sailor!"

Anyways, if I see something really wrong I have to say something. It's in my nature. I won't take offense if the end result is "no thats a stupid thing to worry about, next topic" as long as you guys don't get offended by me bringing a new one up from time to time.