Surface Evil Needs Another Home

[In Sorrow We Trust]

another point I wanted to make but making such posts via mobile is very difficult for me: sencliff is not just a pirate port. there are kids there, and normal people just trying to live.

this makes it incompatible with both settlements rolling in, killing any pirates or suspected pirates they see, and with monster races/Andunorians who ordinarily wear their killing urge on their shoulder. I feel like eventually the NPCs should draw a line.

[Xerah]

I love the idea of Sencliff as "outcast isle" (not just pirates) but there isn't plot armour to protect it as the other settlements have with large walls, kings, external factions, standing "armies", etc.

Maybe it's just me, but I like things connected by the ground (and I don't do sailing unless I get dragged along) so Sencliff really doesn't do it for me.

Probably just beating a dead horse here given there isn't much interest in it. Maybe if we can stop "raids" (which are 95% lag-complicated and don't add that much to the story) there could be more interest without having to keep saying "raids" is the reason we can't have some more FR-like settlements that tend towards other alignments.

[In Sorrow We Trust]

I love the idea of Sencliff as "outcast isle" (not just pirates) but there isn't plot armour to protect it as the other settlements have with large walls, kings, external factions, standing "armies", etc.

Maybe it's just me, but I like things connected by the ground (and I don't do sailing unless I get dragged along) so Sencliff really doesn't do it for me.

Probably just beating a dead horse here given there isn't much interest in it. Maybe if we can stop "raids" (which are 95% lag-complicated and don't add that much to the story) there could be more interest without having to keep saying "raids" is the reason we can't have some more FR-like settlements that tend towards other alignments.

for the record I am totally cool with cordor navy rolling in to spit on the ground and just generally leer and be antagonizing

but having experienced absolutely none of that on any of my pirate characters and instead getting the full force of a few lines of text followed by PvP is a bit

hmm

boring

[Edens_Fall]

The setting and its mechanical implementation doesn't really support an alliance between Andunor and Sencliff - many cultural, ideological and religious differences can be found between the two.

BUT

Here's why it's happening:

• the overwhelming majority of surface characters makes 0 distinction between ink and outcast tag
• individually Andunor's outnumbered by surface 5 to 1, odds are even worse for Sencliff
• there are no alternatives for possible alliances - they can either stand together or stand alone (against EVERYBODY else)

Well stated. I've only ever had two pirate PCs, and both times, I found the above pretty spot on. Hanging at the dock waiting to find a crew or get ganked by some invading settlement guard force was neither fun nor entertaining. Often, I would end up in Andunor to sail or socialize due to the general acceptance of pirates and the ability to find RP without fear of settlement exile or PvP.

[-XXX-]

I love the idea of Sencliff as "outcast isle" (not just pirates) but there isn't plot armour to protect it as the other settlements have with large walls, kings, external factions, standing "armies", etc.

TBH I find the idea that settlement plot armor needs to take the form of walls and manpower rather unimaginative.
FR is a high fantasy setting permeated with divine influence and powerful magic. The sky is the limit here.

[Xerah]

Yes, of course. I’d love a kraken (with a fully temple of umberlee followers who worship it as an avatar) or a ghost pirate army guardians/ships would be great.

[Kythana]

Probably just beating a dead horse here given there isn't much interest in it. Maybe if we can stop "raids" (which are 95% lag-complicated and don't add that much to the story) there could be more interest without having to keep saying "raids" is the reason we can't have some more FR-like settlements that tend towards other alignments.

Agreed.

Raids should require much stricter RP and justification. For both hard and soft.

Additionally, a mindset I've seen of just collecting people and wandering into enemy territory into hope of encountering pvp for the sole justification of, 'I'm bored', is absolutely terrible. The ice roads/minmir ganksquads are so trashy.

[Kuma]

Conceptually I think Guldorand could be the true home for the nuanced less-establishment evil that a lot of people want. Thieves guilds and such, but by design having it tied at the hip with Myon has strangled it's ability to prosper in that direction because they have a militant divinely ordained people who have a very clear cultural direction from their gods.

I do believe for Guldorand to really come into it's own, and frankly propser into the largest city in the server, detaching it from Myon would be wise.

as someone currently playing in guldorand i have to disagree. it's actually doing quite fine as a shades-of-grey settlement where paladins and rogues can have their own conflicts without the story ending immediately, but still stand side by side to combat external threats. this is what a proper society should look like in-game imo. conflict there is ideological, cultural, not 'my god's bigger than your god' and i like that

i agree with gron in full, i don't want to see undead or fiends loitering in the streets, and anyone who thinks that an absence of that means an absence of evil just have a different definition of what "good Evil roleplay" can look like, imo

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

I've avoided replying directly to this thread for a while, mainly because I genuinely dislike the notion of 'team good' and 'team evil' and in fact think it harmful to setting & gameplay. I absolutely won't build towards it. Evil should be in competition with itself, and ideally most characters will hold aspects of both good and evil within themselves, and tell a story a good deal more nuanced than 'forces of light and darkness' nonsense.

Weird, if I were forced to say what creates the black and white effect on arelith as opposed to the shades of grey you are describing here my gut reaction would 100% be because the setting doesn't set the tone. "Team good" and "Team evil" form because teaming up for pvp is what level 30s do, and since the npcs are more or less irrelevant those level 30s fill in the void and end up setting the tone in the npcs stead.

I can't tell you what you should do- Well, actually, I could, but I think our opinions vary enough where you wouldn't listen. But I did think pointing out the opposite point of view was important, because it would be tragic if your fear of x happening actually causes x to happen.

[Kythana]

It's not even necessarily that level 30s team up for pvp, but it's just a natural character motivation to group with those like minded. And when the setting we're playing in has an objective concept of morality with Cosmic Alignment , it's no surprise that characters naturally flock to one side or the other.

I've tried to see people play more nuanced characters. Pirates who didn't support monsters and tried to root them from Sencliff, for example. They ultimately become hated by everyone for taking a more neutral stance, and end up ostracized.

And since the Surface settlements are generally aligned against the Underdark, anyone daring to question or act against the status quo earns the ire of nearly everyone topside. So they naturally filter to Sencliff/Andunor/Dis/Shadow Plane. And thus, we get the idea of Team Good and Team Evil.

[silverpheonix]

As someone who mains a monster and is by default firmly and irrevocably in Team Super Evil, my familiarity with the nuances of surface settlements isn't the deepest. My general understanding is you have Cordor - where you can be politically evil (read: authoritarian) but it shouldn't be on full display in public. You have a face to present. Pacted people are legally fine, but have restrictions on what they can legally do. There's Guldorand, where you can be less savory for certain, pirates aren't unexpected, but you still shouldn't be too directly connected to Team Evil with a capital T.

Then there's Bendir, Brog, and Myon, which I have no experience with so I'm not going to try.

What I see is there's nowhere on the surface for Team Surface Evil to consolidate. Again, I haven't played Surface Evil so I could be entirely wrong. Andunor, for the infighting and drama that happens between districts and faiths and Houses, is a great place for Team Evil to consolidate resources, people, and player ambition. Pirates are generally welcome if they can get a foot in the door, which isn't that hard if they're not randomly instigating or affiliated with the wrong crew. Undead and Fiends loitering in the Hub? It's another cycle that ends in e. For all the differences we have in Andunor, we pretty much universally agree that Team Good (Surface) sucks more than Team Evil of That Other Religion/District.

I'm not talking lawless serial killer land. Take raids. There's no qualms about killing surfacers because they're The Enemy or they worship some funny sun god. Prisoners can be openly tortured and nobody (openly) cares. They can be summarily executed and nobody (openly) cares. Nothing wrong with enslaving thinking, intelligent beings, nothing too wrong with murdering someone because "they were being so much of an idiot they deserved it." These are the more extreme examples so I don't want to look like I'm saying Team Evil is a Caricature of Evil. Team Evil should be evil in morals, and Andunor allows them to be open about it.

Where on the surface is there a fair parallel settlement that has the legitimacy that comes with a functional government system? If there isn't one, then that just pushes people towards, well, Andunor and it becomes less Team Evil vs Team Good and more Team Surface vs Team Underdark & Their Pirate Buddies.

[Irongron]

Weird, if I were forced to say what creates the black and white effect on arelith as opposed to the shades of grey you are describing here my gut reaction would 100% be because the setting doesn't set the tone. "Team good" and "Team evil" form because teaming up for pvp is what level 30s do, and since the npcs are more or less irrelevant those level 30s fill in the void and end up setting the tone in the npcs stead.

I can't tell you what you should do- Well, actually, I could, but I think our opinions vary enough where you wouldn't listen. But I did think pointing out the opposite point of view was important, because it would be tragic if your fear of x happening actually causes x to happen.

Unfortunately I'm all too aware that many build for level 30 pvp, indeed it's pretty much what all the spreadsheets being shared, and discussions are focused on. The process of the levelling itself is trivislized both by the speed of levelling and the build plans themselves.

I'm also aware that PvP is what many players default to in the absence of a top-down narrative. The times I most often see lulls in that is when we have events like the recent weatherstone crisis.

But please don't think I I won't listen because our opinions differ. Like almost anyone on Arelith I have strong opinions, for sure. I also, quite naturally, spend time trying to build towards the game I most want to see, but I do value player input, and understand I can often be wrong (for instance I stopped a subdual system for many years as I was convinced it would lead to 24/7 carnage).

Sharing (politely) ones opinion is not wrong, and I worry when a player is reluctant to.

(Though your wording does make me wonder if you want to advocate for a return to hefty death penalties - a time when PvP was rampant and a source of much OOC bitterness)

[Choofed]

Conceptually I think Guldorand could be the true home for the nuanced less-establishment evil that a lot of people want. Thieves guilds and such, but by design having it tied at the hip with Myon has strangled it's ability to prosper in that direction because they have a militant divinely ordained people who have a very clear cultural direction from their gods.

I do believe for Guldorand to really come into it's own, and frankly propser into the largest city in the server, detaching it from Myon would be wise.

as someone currently playing in guldorand i have to disagree. it's actually doing quite fine as a shades-of-grey settlement where paladins and rogues can have their own conflicts without the story ending immediately, but still stand side by side to combat external threats. this is what a proper society should look like in-game imo. conflict there is ideological, cultural, not 'my god's bigger than your god' and i like that

i agree with gron in full, i don't want to see undead or fiends loitering in the streets, and anyone who thinks that an absence of that means an absence of evil just have a different definition of what "good Evil roleplay" can look like, imo

I think you've mostly just misread the point I was trying to make about it being a home for nuanced evil, thieves guild, more subtle things than undead on the streets. I haven't advocated at all for slavery, demon worship and undead in the streets of Guldorand. If you're saying the Myon hitsquad hasn't come in and crushed some dudes before I guess we've just had very different perceptions.

I strongly believe that the shades of grey has been actively inhibited by the presence of Myon in Guldorand as an attached settlement because they don't play grey they have historically painted black and white. The city would have more room to do the 'bad but not ontologically evil' if a militant divine state with a very specificlly cornered pantheon behind it wasn't a transition over.

[Wrips]

I've avoided replying directly to this thread for a while, mainly because I genuinely dislike the notion of 'team good' and 'team evil' and in fact think it harmful to setting & gameplay. I absolutely won't build towards it. Evil should be in competition with itself, and ideally most characters will hold aspects of both good and evil within themselves, and tell a story a good deal more nuanced than 'forces of light and darkness' nonsense.

I've played in Sencliff lately, and it's actually nice to see this in action. It's not full of an all-black snarky edge crowd then routinely goes looking to kill for the sake of it. I aimed for a somewhat anarchist anti-establishment vibe there, and for the most part this works quite well.

What I've zero interest in having on surface is a town where zombies stand around on the street, cartoon villains sneer at each other, and the main pass time is for level 30 gank squads to seek conflict for its own sake, devoid of any narrative or ambition. I removed the war system for this reason, and it was a large part that Wharftown was destroyed after many failed attempts to intervene and curtail the mindless PvP that originated there. Heck, Wharftown isn't even designed as an 'evil' settlement, and seeing it become such a place just undermined it.

I'm certainly not against having Wharftown return from the Shadow Plane, in fact the ground work has been laid for that, but the notion that it might return how it was in the months before its removal leave me inclined to let it rest in peace.

If one really wants to play 'absolute' evil, then sure - go to Dis.

I absolutely agree. Roleplay should be controversial. If everyone can run to their little corner of the server to avoid dealing with others who may have conflicting ideas, the whole attractiveness of a persistent roleplay server is diminished.

[IncorrigibleNev]

on the other hand, historically I know it has been very common for sencliff to be raided via land in larger numbers than sencliff ever has. sencliff rarely ever has as many people (and people who can fight as opposed to sailing) as the people who come to land to attack them, which has forced them to seek allies.

This is pretty much a direct result of how permissible dock sweeping is as it currently stands. Like it was mentioned earlier the DMs wouldn't want this theoretical settlement to be a raiding hidey-hole, but that's exactly what the other settlements are when comes down to be vs. Sencliff.

[Ruzuke]

Weird, if I were forced to say what creates the black and white effect on arelith as opposed to the shades of grey you are describing here my gut reaction would 100% be because the setting doesn't set the tone. "Team good" and "Team evil" form because teaming up for pvp is what level 30s do, and since the npcs are more or less irrelevant those level 30s fill in the void and end up setting the tone in the npcs stead.

I can't tell you what you should do- Well, actually, I could, but I think our opinions vary enough where you wouldn't listen. But I did think pointing out the opposite point of view was important, because it would be tragic if your fear of x happening actually causes x to happen.

Unfortunately I'm all too aware that many build for level 30 pvp, indeed it's pretty much what all the spreadsheets being shared, and discussions are focused on. The process of the levelling itself is trivislized both by the speed of levelling and the build plans themselves.

I'm also aware that PvP is what many players default to in the absence of a top-down narrative. The times I most often see lulls in that is when we have events like the recent weatherstone crisis.

But please don't think I I won't listen because our opinions differ. Like almost anyone on Arelith I have strong opinions, for sure. I also, quite naturally, spend time trying to build towards the game I most want to see, but I do value player input, and understand I can often be wrong (for instance I stopped a subdual system for many years as I was convinced it would lead to 24/7 carnage).

Sharing (politely) ones opinion is not wrong, and I worry when a player is reluctant to.

(Though your wording does make me wonder if you want to advocate for a return to hefty death penalties - a time when PvP was rampant and a source of much OOC bitterness)

I would state one of the reason people build for PVP is because it is the most effective way for change in the game. In recent RP my spy tried to enact change using social stats. Bluff, Leadership, spread rumors to get NPCs into action. I was instead told to ICly write a letter and talk to one NPC rather than get a lot of NPCs to put pressure on the NPC. At that point just being able to kill the well armed PC became a better option (and so he worked on getting a group together to do just that and started a strategy of how they could best use their powers to kill the threat to them).

I personally would prefer to RP out the solution in a way which doesn't involve needing PVP. I too would love a surface evil settlement that doesn't allow summoning things in the street, but dark magical research could occur. It would be nice if my characters were not warned if they so much acknowledge someone exists they will be branded as evil underdarkers.

People may take time to level in a slower fashion if there was some player agency before level 30 as most conflicts are more quickly resolved by PVP. From team good and team evil I have seen both sides state I don't like what you are saying (in a private conversation) shut up move or I'll kill you. More often from team good.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

Weird, if I were forced to say what creates the black and white effect on arelith as opposed to the shades of grey you are describing here my gut reaction would 100% be because the setting doesn't set the tone. "Team good" and "Team evil" form because teaming up for pvp is what level 30s do, and since the npcs are more or less irrelevant those level 30s fill in the void and end up setting the tone in the npcs stead.

I can't tell you what you should do- Well, actually, I could, but I think our opinions vary enough where you wouldn't listen. But I did think pointing out the opposite point of view was important, because it would be tragic if your fear of x happening actually causes x to happen.

Unfortunately I'm all too aware that many build for level 30 pvp, indeed it's pretty much what all the spreadsheets being shared, and discussions are focused on. The process of the levelling itself is trivislized both by the speed of levelling and the build plans themselves.

I'm also aware that PvP is what many players default to in the absence of a top-down narrative. The times I most often see lulls in that is when we have events like the recent weatherstone crisis.

But please don't think I I won't listen because our opinions differ. Like almost anyone on Arelith I have strong opinions, for sure. I also, quite naturally, spend time trying to build towards the game I most want to see, but I do value player input, and understand I can often be wrong (for instance I stopped a subdual system for many years as I was convinced it would lead to 24/7 carnage).

Sharing (politely) ones opinion is not wrong, and I worry when a player is reluctant to.

(Though your wording does make me wonder if you want to advocate for a return to hefty death penalties - a time when PvP was rampant and a source of much OOC bitterness)

I don't think anyone can consider me someone who is reluctant to share my opinions. It probably took me about six months of playing Arelith before my first opinionated thread, and with this being post number 915 I guarantee 900 of them were filled with things that i think could make a good game better. And that's not even counting my initial forum tag, where I probably got folks even more fired up with my opinions because many of the issues that are prominent now were just seeds back then that many wanted to deny existed. But that's also why I said I can't tell you what to do, because if you were going to take my advice there has been plenty of opportunity to do so already.

As for what I am advocating in this particular thread (I do try to stay topical though I often fail) it has nothing to do with the death penalty. I simply believe that adding a stronger npc presence (not oppressive to player initiative, but also not nonexistent like it is now) would do wonders for the server on so many levels, but in relation to this thread potentially solve a lot of the issues that cropped up here as well. I really do believe that a current chancellor defining the entire tone of a city as opposed to just being a cog in how the city works to use a simple example leads to more homogony, not less, because people want to fit in with a group. The trick is variation from spot to spot, be that settlement to settlement or section of a city to section of a city depending on what works in that particular instance, so that every variation of character can find a spot to say "This must be the place".

Again, focusing in on this thread, I never thought a new surface city where dead and monsters walked freely was the right idea. A city with a "evil" (for simplification purpose) npc backdrop that opened the door for a more nuanced evil character however would be aces. A good comparison would be say Baldurs Gate (traditionally good) and Amn (traditionally neutral with a evil slant). Thats not to say that both nations, or nation and city state respectively if you want to get technical, don't have a mix of everything, but rather this is the prevailing backdrop.

I think I got where you were getting the harsher death penalties, because I did mention permadeath for the aggressors of raids in the other similar thread regarding surface slavery equivalents, but even that wasn't technically about harsher penalties. Instead, the idea was intended to slow down raids to where you almost had to have a narrative driven reason to do it, or at the very least months of planning to try and make sure you survive. That to me ultimately seems far more preferable than a group hitting 30 with the mechanical prowess to take on swaths of players and raids becoming a thing for the next few weeks.

Now, its probably true that if you and I said "ready set go" and wrote down our visions of what a perfect arelith would be, my vision would ultimately be more draconic than yours. But I would hope the fact that I am self-aware of that, and it is something I try to make clear every time I give suggestions, would also tell you that I know I need to temper said suggestions for what would work for Arelith and not have them focus exclusively on what I think would be best for the server personally. And I really do a lot of editing of my own personal preferences to suit what would work here given what's already in place.

And as a final note, I know that these threads are not the optimal place for some of my opinions because they are often trying to focus on the topic at hand and that sometimes end up as incomplete thoughts. But this is the venue I have. I have considered writing super long threads about changes I would make to try and make them into complete thoughts, but I often talk myself out of it somewhere between before starting and two hours into writing it, because it feels presumptuous. Ultimately ideas are a dime a dozen, and the people that would be implementing it should have their own creative license on what they think will and won't work.

That's why I try and focus on general concepts instead of specifics, but that brings us back to incomplete thoughts....

Also, as the real final note, I am happy to see that you see the correlation between dm activity with a major plot line that level 30s can chase down and compete over and the slowdown of pvp that happens during that time. Thats something that several of us have brought up as a potential solution to the "bored so pvp" level 30 dilemma for a few years now.

[Irongron]

I do have a few concerns about a stronger NPC presence in the city, though I do agree that would serve to strengthen the intended flavour. If, for instance, some of the less savory NPC enclaves, or the Founders' Council in Guldorand were more active among the playerbase, and using their influence to ensure that it wasn't dominated by a particular faith or faction, it could serve to strengthen its flavour. The same goes for Abbot of Soulhaven, the King of Cordor, and so on.

Unfortunately, when done outside of a set 'plotline' this could easily lead to a situation I've encountered both here on NWN, and in TTRPG, where the DMs essentially start playing a plot armored character, dominating all storylines (I mean, everyone would love to take it straight to the KING right?), and stifling rp elsewhere. It was for this reason (back when I had more time for such things) that DMs were not permitted to play Edward, they had to summon me to do it. It wasn't just that I wanted to keep his character in tact, I didn't want him to be rolled out every couple of days.

Of course in the hands of a great storytelling DM powerful NPCs can do wonders for a story, and a setting, but it's not really what Arelith is, and well...how to put this politely...a lot of players would rather not engage with some DMs at all? Rather finding any excuse to duck out at the first sniff of a DM event. I get this, and unless they're seeking to avoid consequences, it's absolutely fine with me.

Powerful, active NPCs that many would essentially feel obliged to play with, and to defer to ("Oh s**t, they're a DM, I better not piss them off, maybe it's Irongron') strikes me as an unprofessional, vain approach to running a game like this. If I, or the staff are to play Arelith it should be on equal footing. I keep who I am secret when playing, and DMs, rightly, do the same.

[Peacelily]

This is something I've been discussing lately, about how PVP limits roleplay.

If you have a group who are OOCly very skilled in PvP, they are absolutely capable of forcing their IC agenda. They often have no reason not to; they have tools that let them advance their goals, and they should use them. This means that others absolutely have to build their characters to be able to deal with this if they exist in a society that has such groups, if they intend not to bow to them.

In essence, as PvP grows in acceptability, the meta shifts towards builds designed around PvP, as otherwise you're very much a liability. If you want to play a bard, ignore Song of the Heart, ignore the Dirgesingers, focus on getting EDR III, as a dead bard gives no buffs.

I don't have an answer to this, particularly. Sencliff is not a settlement, so raid rules don't apply, and I don't think Sencliff even wants to be a full settlement in that regard, as then they couldn't attack others. Andunor? The Hub is not safe, is not meant to be safe, and so if one district is willing to resort to PvP, the others can do likewise or bow out of the roleplay down there. Even surface races have similar problems; if the Radiant Heart or Minmar were willing to resort to open PvP, you'd very quickly see the other do the same.

PvP, in the words of a friend, spirals outwards.

This matters because if you want Team Evil to have a place above, you need to either discourage PvP there (like, say, Dis or Shadovar do), or ensure it's not rewarded. If you have player agency in running it, how do you discourage rewarding it? Otherwise, it's very much set for, say, the Paladins running various groups to absolutely claim a divine imperative to strike it down - and they'd be right to do so, as paladins are not meant to suffer evil, worldly or supernatural.

I really don't have answers, but I do want to look at why surface evil has problems, and if that can be resolved, then a place can grow for them quite happily.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

I do have a few concerns about a stronger NPC presence in the city, though I do agree that would serve to strengthen the intended flavour. If, for instance, some of the less savory NPC enclaves, or the Founders' Council in Guldorand were more active among the playerbase, and using their influence to ensure that it wasn't dominated by a particular faith or faction, it could serve to strengthen its flavour. The same goes for Abbot of Soulhaven, the King of Cordor, and so on.

Unfortunately, when done outside of a set 'plotline' this could easily lead to a situation I've encountered both here on NWN, and in TTRPG, where the DMs essentially start playing a plot armored character, dominating all storylines (I mean, everyone would love to take it straight to the KING right?), and stifling rp elsewhere. It was for this reason (back when I had more time for such things) that DMs were not permitted to play Edward, they had to summon me to do it. It wasn't just that I wanted to keep his character in tact, I didn't want him to be rolled out every couple of days.

Of course in the hands of a great storytelling DM powerful NPCs can do wonders for a story, and a setting, but it's not really what Arelith is, and well...how to put this politely...a lot of players would rather not engage with some DMs at all? Rather finding any excuse to duck out at the first sniff of a DM event. I get this, and unless they're seeking to avoid consequences, it's absolutely fine with me.

Powerful, active NPCs that many would essentially feel obliged to play with, and to defer to ("Oh s**t, they're a DM, I better not piss them off, maybe it's Irongron') strikes me as an unprofessional, vain approach to running a game like this. If I, or the staff are to play Arelith it should be on equal footing. I keep who I am secret when playing, and DMs, rightly, do the same.

I 100% get your concerns and agree that they are things that would have to be worked out behind the scenes if you went this route. Where we differ is the conclusions, and perhaps on a few assumptions.

For example, I don't feel like playing with a dm is an obligation. I have traditionally been the sort of player that you describe, ducking out of dm events unless my character is directly involved already. It should just be another facet of what the server offers, not something one feels they have to take part in.

I also feel like there has to be something between dms playing npcs as their characters or having the king of Cordor solve every problem and having 0 structured background and back drop agendas for the NPCs. Random possessions, NPCs showing up for player events, these are all nice but can be adjusted to taste. It's really just about adding a little flavor and letting the players roll with it as they will.

And for your last paragraph, I don't agree with the premise. I already laid out why. But the ability for a dm to randomly possess a npc and tell a story or a pat on the back or even an ic admonishment is a big part of what makes neverwinter nights special, accompanied by the ability of someone in the dm client to set up a fun event for players. I don't see using that advantage as unprofessional or vain at all.

[Ruzuke]

I would agree with this. By removing the NPC presence, we have the Radiant Hart Auxiliary acting as if they were full members of the order and running the location. We have most officers in cities ruling cities. There leads to a place there is not an option other than PVP.

At this point in the game design with DMs not enforcing theme for the fear a DM might plot armor a NPC character it is left for players to fend for themselves leading to the strongest will survive. The feedback in Harbringer is... well for PVP this class is better. For surface evil to have a home it will require staff to say this is how the game is to be played.

[Eyeliner]

NPCs don't have to be elites to have influence. Tough guards or thugs can set the tone of an area and keep players in line, including enforcing the idea that do-gooders picking fights aren't welcome in this part of town. More than having a DM supercharacter show up and boss us around, maybe it's more important to be repeatedly reminded that our level 30 characters aren't gods and there's a whole realm of NPCs who are easily able to smack them down if necessary.

[Edens_Fall]

I do have a few concerns about a stronger NPC presence in the city, though I do agree that would serve to strengthen the intended flavour. If, for instance, some of the less savory NPC enclaves, or the Founders' Council in Guldorand were more active among the playerbase, and using their influence to ensure that it wasn't dominated by a particular faith or faction, it could serve to strengthen its flavour. The same goes for Abbot of Soulhaven, the King of Cordor, and so on.

Unfortunately, when done outside of a set 'plotline' this could easily lead to a situation I've encountered both here on NWN, and in TTRPG, where the DMs essentially start playing a plot armored character, dominating all storylines (I mean, everyone would love to take it straight to the KING right?), and stifling rp elsewhere. It was for this reason (back when I had more time for such things) that DMs were not permitted to play Edward, they had to summon me to do it. It wasn't just that I wanted to keep his character in tact, I didn't want him to be rolled out every couple of days.

Of course in the hands of a great storytelling DM powerful NPCs can do wonders for a story, and a setting, but it's not really what Arelith is, and well...how to put this politely...a lot of players would rather not engage with some DMs at all? Rather finding any excuse to duck out at the first sniff of a DM event. I get this, and unless they're seeking to avoid consequences, it's absolutely fine with me.

Powerful, active NPCs that many would essentially feel obliged to play with, and to defer to ("Oh s**t, they're a DM, I better not piss them off, maybe it's Irongron') strikes me as an unprofessional, vain approach to running a game like this. If I, or the staff are to play Arelith it should be on equal footing. I keep who I am secret when playing, and DMs, rightly, do the same.

I personally don't see a greater need for an increased powerful NPC presence per se. The current way of DMs using agents of the king, merchant league, or founders to progress plots, etc, feels fine. The Big shots need only really appear to address Major settlement or setting issues. On that note however, I would like to suggest a stronger, or perhaps more defined, vision for the settlements be reinforced. I have always been under the impression that it was the team's desire each settlement had a certain flavor when compared to others. From Cordor being more a Neutral/Evil feudalistic city-state, Myon's dogmatic militaristic protection of elven culture/people, to Guldorand's rigid Charter and mixed allingment council, etc. If this is indeed the idea behind things, a reinforcement and clear intent for each location would be beneficial overall to the player base and setting. Much like the effort that has been placed into reinforcing Andunor by the staff as a Trade City until this view is now enforced by the player base as part of the setting.

I would really enjoy seeing this done to Guld, whose diverse council allows so much opportunity and story creation. Add this to the various enclaves and city factions . . . the ideas for plots and stories are possibly limitless! However . . . in order for players to make use of this setting, there will need to be strong staff watchfulness during such things to reinforce the settlement's direction. At least until it settles into the player base and setting. Currently, though it has improved since its opening, there is a tendency for the old ways of doing things to still prevail with interactions between Myon and the Founders.

That's my own thoughts on the matter at least, for what its worth.

[ClockworkRed]

My experience is that any DM interaction especially in evil aligned settings very quickly can raise concerns of favorism from players. There are usually conflict plot lines going on in parallel between factions or PCs on several levels that DMs might not even be aware of. Even just running a small event for a subgroup is quickly seen as "taking sides", somehow due to the fact that the stories with DM interaction weigh heavier. Not sure if that is really the case, but my feeling is that there is often a silent agreement between players that no one seeks DM interaction to keep a level playing field for conflict.

For the original topic - In my humble opinion, there is no need for a suface evil city but maybe some of the existing places could be revisited under the consideration that evil surface is usually much smaller in player numbers than surface good. I think for me three points are always important.

Traffic
There needs to be some traffic in a place and it must be shaped such that you run into each other. An empty place is not really helpful for evil. Works excellently in Sencliff in my eyes even with the challenge that many Pirates are often at sea. If there is another PC on the island chances are almost 100% you bump into each other as shops are aligned in such a way that everyone takes the same circle. The place is also really beautifully designed, I know some players including me who enjoy to walk around alone until someone else shows up. As a starter place, you have new players starting there right away.
As counter example the Thieves' Den seems to suffer from lack of traffic, also shops and the social place are separated so you do not know where to wait to bump into other players.

Reachability for evil, harder to reach for team good
Again Sencliff is ideal due to the Smugglers. Worst case I have seen is the Minmir Banite temple (maybe I overlooked a nearby portal). I once tried to contact them with a low level and basically sneaked there logged off and then logged on here and there in the hope someone is around. Took forever.

Mechanical Defense
Best example here is the Cliff's mangonels. Solved the problem of flagships camping the Sencliff port mechanically in an excellent way without any additional rules or DM interaction. In my eyes a lot of agency is taken from "good side" now that Sencliff requires DM raid permission. There were very frustrating raids where for weeks some never seen before PCs did dock sweeps on a regular basis. But there were also brilliant fun raids, with ships waiting before the port, spies at the docks and an additional raid party to take over the magonels.
Some mechanical support for team evil to defend their place would in my eyes work better than artifically reducing raid numbers by requiring raid applications. Again taking Sencliff as example, one could move the feast hall defenses, which make no sense at all where they are now. If Pirates can lock the gate from the graveyard to Sencliff and have a fortification there to provide line of sight advantage, raid parties would run additional risks when their arrival is expected.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

My experience is that any DM interaction especially in evil aligned settings very quickly can raise concerns of favorism from players. There are usually conflict plot lines going on in parallel between factions or PCs on several levels that DMs might not even be aware of. Even just running a small event for a subgroup is quickly seen as "taking sides", somehow due to the fact that the stories with DM interaction weigh heavier. Not sure if that is really the case, but my feeling is that there is often a silent agreement between players that no one seeks DM interaction to keep a level playing field for conflict.

I've never heard of this silent agreement, so it has me curious. What sort of conflict between two pc groups has its balance tipped by one side going on a dm event? And what sort of things are happening on said dm events to make the tipping happen?