Surface Evil Needs Another Home

[Aellowyn]

I think we have some decent areas that allow evil to exist already, though some could use a small change or reminder to help shift the server culture.

Guldorand is a very gray area which allows for evil and non-evil to exist. Since its birth I've seen the Charter successfully keep the good leaning attempts a little more tame and serve as a prime example of how the stark black and white split of good and evil can be kept at bay by server setting; which was mentioned as more realistic to the Forgotten Realms.

This required the occasional DM to step in and have a meeting/post a reminder by the Founder's Council, or other small changes. I also think changing the Eagle's ownership was a huge improvement. These little shifts with Guldorand, even Andunor from it's Hub Hellball days, have made the server culture itself shift, something I think could be used to improve the culture of other places, such as Sencliff.

Sencliff could be another good gray area. It is heavily favored towards its inked inhabitants as far as access, which I don't think is necessarily bad. I really enjoyed it once upon a time as a non-sailor, non-pirate between various aligned characters, yet I've chosen to spend time elsewhere due to the ease of leaving and running into the mentioned gank squads-- which I hear continues after all these years. If a gradual shift is made and it was allowed certain settlement PvP rules regardless of being a settlement, I could see the gank squads being less of an issue and the possibility of more people becoming comfortable hanging out or passing through there.

Sibayed...another gray area, less a home but somewhere to go sometimes... No monster races allowed and the merchant league tells troublemakers to "get off my lawn". Although some of the writs existing elsewhere means you can skip visiting Sibayed altogether to do writs, so an excuse to go there other than check for homes and shops, might increase foot traffic. My own suggestion would be improving/increasing the size of the arena and maybe adding a second entrance/exit. I've seen more fight events being held out in the desert rather than in the arena or they've fallen to Dis.

[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.

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?

Anything really.

Faction A and B fight for influence in Area C. Faction A organizes an event and is lucky that they find a DM who spices up the occasion. So the think let's share it and invite the usual suspects. Next day faction B hears the power figures of that region talk on how cool it was that Faction A brought DM attention to Area C. Now they feel "betrayed" by the staff as their long time plan of a bloody night of blades for Faction A is made more difficult. The Discord discussion starts and more urgent questions arise. How did they get the DM attention? Maybe Faction A is friends with a DM or worse - maybe there is one of the secret DM PCs part of Faction A. When the murdering starts can they still rely on a neutral oversight by the DM team. ...

Area A is designed for purpose A. Faction B sees it is completely empty and wants to start something fresh and uses it for purpose B. People like it and things go well, everyone is having fun. PC C enters the area and sees that this area is clearly made for purpose A, so they call in a DM. Player C points out NPC A, who is sitting in area A, would not agree that it is used for purpose B. Seems a pretty clear matter, so DM hops into the NPC and tells faction B that they can't use it for purpose B. Now faction B is angry, because NPC A didn't mind for months it was used for purpose B. Maybe the DM only acted because player C is friends with the staff ...

---

I just wanted to point out you just must know what you ask for. Asking for NPCs to govern stories in an area creates two issues in my eyes. Firstly, DMs have a double role. As soon as they get involved in the stories, players loose trust that they also will act as neutral referees. From I have experienced, there is already a large trust issue within the playerbase that would only be augmented in my eyes.
Secondly NPCs would need to act in a timely manner. That seems to me to be hard with the current player to DM ratio.

My feeling is that players' first priority in conflict is to have a fair game for all involved factions. It's really not discussed at all, I just notice in certain areas, you tend to forget DMs exist. Nobody ever mentions they would like to see more DM involvement. Whenever a rare DM event happens everyone politely attends but then you do not see the usual buzz thereafter. Everyone returns to bussiness as usual. I must admit, I experienced way less OOC hassle in this setting even with very tough player vs. player conflict, with only a rare occasional DM acting in oversight .

In no way I want to critize the DM work, every DM event I have seen was great. Just that sadly they are very quickly interpreted as "taking sides".

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

I'll just go over your examples briefly because I want to get to the second half.

One, dms play more as pcs when events are scarce. The server doesn't break down despite that because reasonable people believe that they can do both and still be fair arbiters. We are talking about humans, so things happen, but arelith has a "chain of command" to report to if you think something is wonky, and you should definitely make use of that in those instances.

Two is a bit different because while it's really not what I am talking about I get how you got there from what I have suggested. Truth is however we already have a limited number of designated houses on the server. All the properties on Sencliff require one to have ranks as a pirate, radiant heart is for the auxiliary, ect ect. The server hasn't crumbled because bannites can't take the sweet guild house in the radiant heart. And in regard to the thread's initial topic, an evil city, I think that a good organization or two within its walls is just fine similar to how evil can own places in cordor and guldorand, ect.

As for the second half, I feel you made two assumptions that are incorrect.

First, not everyone plays Arelith for the conflict. In fact, I know a dozen people minimum who would love some story driven conflict but avoid it on arelith all together because as soon as people start dying left and right over and over again in pvp it gets silly. And tends to not end until a dm steps in. And since I'm sure there are more than that dozen or so based on what's written on these forums, I think finding a way for them to have fun is important, and I believe strengthening the setting and having more dm interaction would help with that. If all you want to do is team up and pvp, that will still be there, this just introduces another element to the server.

Second, and I can't say this enough apparently, there is a huge gap between a flat setting that means nothing and npcs showing up every thirty seconds to save the day, or solve plots, or tip the scales of balance in pvp wars. Somewhere in the middle there has to be a happy place for arelith, I would bet my life on it. And while it would take work to get us there, it wouldn't be that much because most of the pieces are already in place they just need to be fleshed out, and it's the kind of work that's fun because it taps into imaginations.

To me? It seems like a no brainer. But unless Irongron agrees it's all moot anyways.

[The GrumpyCat]

Most of the NPCs... the high profile ones at least, tend to have two purposes when they're used by Dms.
a) Provide plot for pcs
b) Help enforce/create setting for the PCs.

There is a balence though, as has been said, about enforcing a setting, giving a world atmosphere, giving players a feeling of challenge and structure, and also giving players the freedom and space to make their own stories, especially in a game as massive as Arelith.

Many years back, before EE, I took a break from Arelith tried out the server of Ravenloft. I found it to be an absolutly stunning server in terms of atmosphere and setting. The gloomyness, the look of it, the scaryness of the nights - it was really good. But I couldn't find myself sticking around for too long. Same as with most NWN servers I've tried. Why? Because it seemed to me - especially on Ravenloft, that for the most part people really were waiting around for the next DM event to happen. That people very much depended on these events to actually DO anything.

In a server as large as arelith, even when Dms are extremely active, you'll find a large number of players complaining they've 'never encountered a DM event.' Which is fair, and the nature of the beast. There just arn't enough of us to reach everyone and not all of us want to, or are able, to run events 24/7.
However this isn't neccesarly a big deal, with players given enough tools to effect the world, and other players, they can - at least to an extent, make their own stories.
The problem is sometimes those storites... well sure, sometimes... often even, they're amazing... and sometimes they arn't. And they can be problematic in a number of ways. Problematic in terms of Lore, of Content, of making it fun for others, it's a balence I don't think anyone really gets because it's all to different tastes.

Not sure where I'm exactly going with this, except to agree with Babylon Systems is the Vampire - in that it's a balence. Where does the slider lie on that balence? I don't honestly know. But one aspect that perhaps should also be considered is simple capacity for the Dms.

[Quizmar]

I think Myon needs to be moved out of Guldorand, then it would be much shadier and that would be a big improvement

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

Not sure where I'm exactly going with this, except to agree with Babylon Systems is the Vampire - in that it's a balence. Where does the slider lie on that balence? I don't honestly know. But one aspect that perhaps should also be considered is simple capacity for the Dms.

I've pretty much said all I can say in this thread and then some already, so I was going to be done but you brought up an interesting subject that I have discussed with others who have worked other servers before, in regard to the capacity of the dms. And while I have heard numbers like one dm to every 8 players, I think that's a ridiculous ratio for arelith and probably impossible. What i do think is that a number along the lines of 1 to every 20 players is more in line with what arelith wants, meaning if the server has 1000 players it would need 50 dms.

Thats not to say you have 50 dms running things at the same time, I'm a firm believer in having three to five meta plots brewing on the stove with only one truly active at any given time, and the other two to four there to replace that one when it picks up speed and inevitably reaches its conclusion. Whichever one of the spare plot lines has the most interest at that point moves into the main slot, and you add another new plot to the background. Along the way there can be plenty of one shot, or two and three shot stories, but i feel like it's better to have only one metaplot going because it ensures that everyone on the team is working with the players on that and it becomes a team effort as a result instead of running the risk of one dm driving the entire setting off the rails.

So why do I think the team needs 50 dms for that? It's because DMs have other responsibilities, and as anyone who has ever run a long plot line on any nwn server in the history of nwn can tell you, more often than not you need a break after it's over. Sometimes it's to play the game as a pc, sometimes it's to forget nwn is even a thing for a while. This will happen for more than just plots and will happen no matter what the size of your dm team is, so it's always good to have "backups" for lack of a better word when that happens.

[Hazard]

I think there is a lack of disconnect between what the people living in the d&d world (the setting/arelith) would know, believe and understand, and what we as players know, believe and understand, as well as a lack of depth and complexity to much of the "conflict" which can often come across as just PvP for the sake of PvP (and thus, justifiably, ignored by the server at large, because it offers no narriatve to latch onto).

For example... Imps as familiars are not that uncommon, and to have such a lesser being going about, especially one that is under the control of someone else, would likely have you be distrusted or feared or whatever, but on Arelith the response would be pretty immediate, extreme and singular. It would be, "Go to the Underdark or DIE!" Consider how far away, deep, unknown and entirely alien the Underdark is, and dominated by powerful eldritch beings and Drow ... Your character concept revolves around all of that now, because you wanted an imp as a familiar.

Another example, imagine a struggling farmer is gifted an undead beast of burden by some passer-by necromancer. It does not need rest, it does not sleep, it does not eat or drink, this mule (or whatever) can work tirelessly and obediently and as far as the average person is concerned it isn't hurting anyone, and most people have bigger problems to worry about. We as players know the cosmic powers, the rules, the everything, so we as players know it is 'OBJECTIVELY EVIL', but in the d&d world it isn't that simple, not even for someone as zealous as a paladin. Consider, what would a paladin do? Well, an Arelithian paladin or even just the average Arelithian would show up, declare undead to be evil, destroy it, likely kill the farmer (and their family if they try to protect them), imprison them or banish them. Best case scenario, you simply destroy the undead beast and walk away; now that family was relying on it and they fall into hardship that they may not survive, and to survive that harship they may even turn to crime or worse yet to evil (protip, crime is not always evil).

IMO, these overreactions and simple solutions to very complex problems are a symptom of not considering the world deeply or seriously enough through the eyes of the inhabitants, and instead relying on our OOC knowledge of what is objectively good/evil, and over simplifying what a 'good' act is. In this scenario, even if you just kill the undead mule and walk away, you ended an evil act, but you committed an evil act as well. You did not behave as a 'good' person would have.

A truly 'good' character would hang around to make sure the family is alright afterwards and set them on a better path, because 'goodness' is the difficult path, not the easy path.

Sorry to judge how people RP their characters, but imo, the average paladin would fail this test because their player would convince themselves everything they did was right and good, no matter how much more harm/evil is brought into the world in total afterwards.

These are the sorts of conflict we should be having IC. Arguing about what to do, what not to do, whether to leave it or to act and if so how to act and what comes after acting.

The simple easy solution of "me good u bad" kill Is a child's version of good vs evil, and exactly the sort of ideology used to manipulate good people into committing acts of evil while believing themselves to be doing the right thing.

/rant

TL;DR we need a cultural shift, encouraged by dm efforts & module alterations. If you reply to this with 'be the change you want to see', then please hand over the keys.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

Hazzard, we had a saying on my old server as dms, "players do what players are going to do". Essentially it meant trying to predict player reactions to any given situation was folly. The server is never going to get to a place where everyone reacts to x, y, or z, in a way that makes sense to you. It never happened on smaller servers, and on a server of Arelith's size and varied play styles...yeah. It's not something anyone can reasonably expect.

Also, be the change you want to see is exactly where players should be on their end.

But where you and I agree is that requires what you want to see as being a desired style of play to have any impact, and without a strong setting backdrop caring about the npcs in any facet as a pc often stands out as weird to what the tone of the rest of the player base has become, which more often than not resembles avatars of the players themselves instead of characters a player is playing. If people see folks going on fun events for playing a certain way, a number of them will shift their style in that direction. And those that don't and completely ignore that part of the game still have arelith as is, making it a win/win.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

Evil =/= villainy.
Villainy =/= a place for villains.

Throwing the monstrous and the obvious mythological evil aside, "surface" evil thrives best when it's put in direct opposition in settlement RP and is masked with the best of intentions.

Best periods of surface evil have always been when it confuses and confounds Team Good.

Is that guy over there really evil? I saw him call out a Banite. Is that knight really a Thayvian scumbag? They defended the city from gnolls.

I flip flop all the time, but my latest conclusion is what I think Arelith is strongest when "Team Good" is really vague, factionalized, and divided, because so much of the server is convinced huge swathes of it are "evil." This is often the best breeding ground for conflict and more ideological/cultural battles to come about, than cosmic ones (to Kuma's point).

[In Sorrow We Trust]

I think there is a lack of disconnect between what the people living in the d&d world (the setting/arelith) would know, believe and understand, and what we as players know, believe and understand, as well as a lack of depth and complexity to much of the "conflict" which can often come across as just PvP for the sake of PvP (and thus, justifiably, ignored by the server at large, because it offers no narriatve to latch onto).

For example... Imps as familiars are not that uncommon, and to have such a lesser being going about, especially one that is under the control of someone else, would likely have you be distrusted or feared or whatever, but on Arelith the response would be pretty immediate, extreme and singular. It would be, "Go to the Underdark or DIE!" Consider how far away, deep, unknown and entirely alien the Underdark is, and dominated by powerful eldritch beings and Drow ... Your character concept revolves around all of that now, because you wanted an imp as a familiar.

Another example, imagine a struggling farmer is gifted an undead beast of burden by some passer-by necromancer. It does not need rest, it does not sleep, it does not eat or drink, this mule (or whatever) can work tirelessly and obediently and as far as the average person is concerned it isn't hurting anyone, and most people have bigger problems to worry about. We as players know the cosmic powers, the rules, the everything, so we as players know it is 'OBJECTIVELY EVIL', but in the d&d world it isn't that simple, not even for someone as zealous as a paladin. Consider, what would a paladin do? Well, an Arelithian paladin or even just the average Arelithian would show up, declare undead to be evil, destroy it, likely kill the farmer (and their family if they try to protect them), imprison them or banish them. Best case scenario, you simply destroy the undead beast and walk away; now that family was relying on it and they fall into hardship that they may not survive, and to survive that harship they may even turn to crime or worse yet to evil (protip, crime is not always evil).

IMO, these overreactions and simple solutions to very complex problems are a symptom of not considering the world deeply or seriously enough through the eyes of the inhabitants, and instead relying on our OOC knowledge of what is objectively good/evil, and over simplifying what a 'good' act is. In this scenario, even if you just kill the undead mule and walk away, you ended an evil act, but you committed an evil act as well. You did not behave as a 'good' person would have.

A truly 'good' character would hang around to make sure the family is alright afterwards and set them on a better path, because 'goodness' is the difficult path, not the easy path.

Sorry to judge how people RP their characters, but imo, the average paladin would fail this test because their player would convince themselves everything they did was right and good, no matter how much more harm/evil is brought into the world in total afterwards.

These are the sorts of conflict we should be having IC. Arguing about what to do, what not to do, whether to leave it or to act and if so how to act and what comes after acting.

The simple easy solution of "me good u bad" kill Is a child's version of good vs evil, and exactly the sort of ideology used to manipulate good people into committing acts of evil while believing themselves to be doing the right thing.

/rant

TL;DR we need a cultural shift, encouraged by dm efforts & module alterations. If you reply to this with 'be the change you want to see', then please hand over the keys.

thanks, you worded it way better than I would

[Peacelily]

TL;DR

One of the issues with this view is that in the Forgotten Realms, we have unobjective Cosmic Good, and unobjective Cosmic Evil. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm just going to call them Good and Evil, capitalising them. We also have socially beneficious actions, and socially disadvantageous actions; also called good and evil.

So much of the issue with D&D in general, and FR in particular, is people mixing up Good and good, and Evil and evil.

In this case, Evil involves using negative energy to create undead. There is no exception to this; it is an Evil act. However, the god of death, Kelemvor, sometimes decides it is ultimately necessary to create undead to prevent a worse situation arising; so while it's Evil, it's also good.

What does this mean for your farmers? It means they're out of luck. If they're using undead, created by negative energy, they are hosting a being of Evil. That means the first paladin who comes across it is probably going to kill it, for they shall not suffer Evil to live. Are the farmers doing anything wrong? Not particularly. They didn't create it. They put it to work to feed their family. They didn't hurt anyone. There's nothing evil in their actions; but the undead mule is still an innately Evil being, and to a paladin, needs to be destroyed.

Paladins, generally, should draw a distinction between Good and good, and Evil and evil. Something can be evil - a merchant cheating someone and giving them inferior goods for a top price - but that person doesn't deserve to die. They might need talking to, and they might be doing things that ultimately outweight the harm they're causing - they might be putting money into particular programs or schemes that ultimately favor society, and just scamming rich people because they don't like them.

That's small-e evil. It's selfish. It hurts others to benefit yourself. But it may not be Evil. It's not summoning fiends, or creating undead, or using magic which is innately Evil (Chill Touch, you villainous cantrip, I'm looking at you!).

The difference between a paladin and a normal, sane person, is that most people are going to look at a farmer with an undead mule and sigh, tell them to save up and get a proper, living mule as soon as they can. They might even help. A paladin is going to destroy that mule, because their oaths are not to human morality. Their oaths are to something greater; a cosmic Good that overrides what is actually best for people here and now.

This, honestly, is why most paladins don't end up in government. You need to compromise, accept lesser evils in order to defeat greater Evils. A paladin is not going to suffer Evil to live, or they may fall. It's hard for a paladin to live in a world with a rich magical heritage which does include Evil spells and acts as common tools.

How does this matter? When you're talking about surface settlements, a paladin can accept an evil settlement. They will not accept an Evil settlement. I might want to have a Thayan colony which freely accepts necromancers and fiend-binders, but a paladin is going to fight that, because they're engaging in capital-e Evil. Human morality has nothing to do with it. On the other hand, they can reluctantly accept evil - purely mundane evil is something they can live with, even if they might struggle against it.

I imagine if Sencliff didn't align with the UD, didn't use fiends or undead, they might have less of a difficult time - or, you know, get wiped out by people who confuse Evil and evil. That happens a lot as well. By contrast, Sibayad is evil - it practices slavery, but it doesn't condone undead, it doesn't welcome monsters, so while it's distasteful, it's not Evil.

So the question of how you work with surface settlements is important; if you want one that's evil, that's a lot easier to sell than one that's Evil.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

Here's the thing though. Realistically, a paladin could hate an entire city and still do nothing about it. Not because they don't want to, but rather a lone paladin or a few paladins in a band couldn't take on an entire city unless said city's guards were made of paper with applesauce holding it together. The only reason it seems like that isn't the case on Arelith is directly related to the lack of a setting structure.

[Hazard]

made of paper with applesauce

yum ..

[Peacelily]

Here's the thing though. Realistically, a paladin could hate an entire city and still do nothing about it. Not because they don't want to, but rather a lone paladin or a few paladins in a band couldn't take on an entire city unless said city's guards were made of paper with applesauce holding it together. The only reason it seems like that isn't the case on Arelith is directly related to the lack of a setting structure.

Not disagreeing with you there. Systematic change; either for paladins willingly serving an evil liege (Jenny Cordor, Banite!) or removing evil (not Evil!) settlements is really tough. That doesn't change what I've said; distinguishing between Evil and evil is important when figuring out what you want on the surface, and what can actually hold and remain.

[-XXX-]

I imagine if Sencliff didn't align with the UD, didn't use fiends or undead, they might have less of a difficult time - or, you know, get wiped out by people who confuse Evil and evil. That happens a lot as well. By contrast, Sibayad is evil - it practices slavery, but it doesn't condone undead, it doesn't welcome monsters, so while it's distasteful, it's not Evil.

Fully warded killsquads tend to appear in Sencliff docks right after a ship gets attacked on the sea - not because somebody created a zombie or let a goblin in.

Sencliff is actually a good example why most towns (should/already do) have a degree of setting plot armor. Whenever an opposing faction does something that might be interpreted as a "win" by the opposing side or a character suffers a "loss" as a result of another character's actions, most players default to the OOC urge to "fix" the situation ASAP (traditionally accompanied by the IC phrases: "settle the score", "set things right", "give 'em what for", etc.).

While reprisal is a perfectly legitimate RP plot, storming the enemy "base" immediately after they stole your team's "flag" is not the way to go about it.

Players usually need both an OOC reminder and an IC excuse to steer away from this mindset - NPC presence can serve that purpose. DMs don't really need to take control of Darnoth for players (and their characters) to acknowledge that randomly storming Brog might not be the brightest of ideas, after all.

[Peacelily]

Fully warded killsquads tend to appear in Sencliff docks right after a ship gets attacked on the sea - not because somebody created a zombie or let a goblin in.

How much of that is the fact Sencliff has aligned with capital-e Evil, in the UD, necromancers, and warlocks? Fiends and undead aren't exactly uncommon on their docks. It makes for an easy case to convince others they are, actually, vile, as opposed to bandits. To me, this shows the opposite point you wanted to make; a surface settlement that is capital-e Evil is going to have super problems without that protection.

Would the same response be there if they didn't have that?

[The GrumpyCat]

Dropping in a few points for consideration. These points don't neccesarly overrule any good ideas - they're just 'huh, keep this in mind.'

a) More Dms - We really do try to be as proffessional as possible in the DM team, at least in terms of integrity. Lots of checks and balences are in place to make sure Dms don't abuse their powers, and when/if they do, they're swiftly removed. Plus we have a relitivly high dropout rate, it's not for everyone. To bring on 50 DMs will make policing harder, and open up more likelyhood of DM abuse, corruption and so on. It's rough - but there it is.

b) I believe it's been argued that if there WAS an Evil Settlment (capital E - we're talking undead, demons ect) Settlment (again Captial S, as in full voting ect) then how do you keep it evil? Sure, maybe the settlment status stops folk from charging in and pvping you, but nothing stops them from just coming in next election term and voting you out, and making it the Not At All Evil Settlment. I suppose some sort of mechanic could be put in place to stop that (Can only vote if Evil) but such things are clunky, to say the least. It might also mean a settlment with very low population. (Please note the 'might' there- given as another point I make later may contradict this)

c) Even with that in - evil comes in different stripes. Anyone can pick it, and yet be firmly against undead/demon summoning, so we'd need a heavy NPC presence to enforce this aspect. Which brings up the question of... what? In terms of Lore using Undead/Feinds is - at least in the grand scheme - Really Nasty and Bad and done by Very Bad People. To have a place that would allow such, likely means it's not going to be a Very Nice Place to Live. In fact it's going to be pretty horrific. Why would people then choose to live there? Not so much the PCs here, but more the NPCs. I think realistically, what you're looking at is some sort of magical enclave (think Boreal Keep) or else perhaps a prison, as suggested earlier. Like the underdark, such people are in a place because they have literaly no where else to go.

May add more thoughts as they come.

[Peacelily]

I approve of using capital-e Evil to distinguish!

Thayan Enclaves is the way I'd recommend. Especially with a massive, huge IC catastrophe just happened, Thay could come and offer 'Hey, so, we can actually stop your citizens dying, AND offer some cool magical items, but we want the right to found an X and study'.

Initially, lock it behind an app, the same as Freth and Derlson nobles. Thayan Wizards would get to vote on the settlement, with no others, but would absolutely be interested in recruiting others - Knights are already a perfect class! - to support them. They could even make Gnolls surface-viable, as civilised gnolls are common in Thay. And if PCs try to stop them, not only do Thayans have huge magical might, but they'd be breaching the laws of various cities, who had made agreements in order to, y'know, stop mass starvation.

The enclaves wouldn't need to be huge - a small keep, some farms and such, but would absolutely be Evil, entrenched, and with every reason to be there.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

Dropping in a few points for consideration. These points don't neccesarly overrule any good ideas - they're just 'huh, keep this in mind.'

a) More Dms - We really do try to be as proffessional as possible in the DM team, at least in terms of integrity. Lots of checks and balences are in place to make sure Dms don't abuse their powers, and when/if they do, they're swiftly removed. Plus we have a relitivly high dropout rate, it's not for everyone. To bring on 50 DMs will make policing harder, and open up more likelyhood of DM abuse, corruption and so on. It's rough - but there it is.

b) I believe it's been argued that if there WAS an Evil Settlment (capital E - we're talking undead, demons ect) Settlment (again Captial S, as in full voting ect) then how do you keep it evil? Sure, maybe the settlment status stops folk from charging in and pvping you, but nothing stops them from just coming in next election term and voting you out, and making it the Not At All Evil Settlment. I suppose some sort of mechanic could be put in place to stop that (Can only vote if Evil) but such things are clunky, to say the least. It might also mean a settlment with very low population. (Please note the 'might' there- given as another point I make later may contradict this)

c) Even with that in - evil comes in different stripes. Anyone can pick it, and yet be firmly against undead/demon summoning, so we'd need a heavy NPC presence to enforce this aspect. Which brings up the question of... what? In terms of Lore using Undead/Feinds is - at least in the grand scheme - Really Nasty and Bad and done by Very Bad People. To have a place that would allow such, likely means it's not going to be a Very Nice Place to Live. In fact it's going to be pretty horrific. Why would people then choose to live there? Not so much the PCs here, but more the NPCs. I think realistically, what you're looking at is some sort of magical enclave (think Boreal Keep) or else perhaps a prison, as suggested earlier. Like the underdark, such people are in a place because they have literaly no where else to go.

May add more thoughts as they come.

A) I get where you are coming from, and while i do have a few counter points I don't want to get stuck in the mud of "50 dms" being my point, when it was more of an afterthought response to something said. I am curious about why arelith has such a high drop out rate for dms though, but im sure as these things happen in a way that rarely if ever involves an exit interview, and at best an educated guess would be all one could hope for.

B) What you are describing here is part of what I would consider the main problem with the setting. An election won in cordor makes one a chancellor, who is still beneath the king. An election won in Guldorand would make one the sheriff, who is beneath the founders council. So, let's say you have a city ruled by a bannite lord, and the pc elected official was say called Grand Moff because I often equate the empire in star wars to bannites. Sure, in theory a shiny paladin could win the election...but that also means that shiny paladin is now serving a bannite lord as his Grand Moff. That tells me the only thing that should be in danger of being derailed is the new Gand Moffs future as a paladin.

C) You jammed a lot in this one, so let me start by saying that imo a new city is not necessary to facilitate a strengthening of the setting. The tools to do that are already in place here on arelith, it all just needs to be fleshed out. Highlighting the difference between upper guldorand and lower guldorand for an easy example by fleshing out the iron thrones shady side could work just as well and should probably happen new city or not. I liked the idea of an evil settlement because it was a step in the right direction, but there are plenty of paths to take to get to the same overall result.

In an attempt to respond to the rest in one swoop, if a surface city was made with the purpose of slanting toward evil, it shouldn't just be anundor on the surface. That doesn't really make sense on an ooc level or an ic level, since you already have anundor and part of strengthening the setting is making each city feel unique. And 100% it should feel like a lawful evil city that follows the social norms of any surface city in regard to monsters and undead within its walls while at the same time not expelling someone because they interact with demon worshipers or summon undead when they are out adventuring, a difference that is important in regard to the npc citizens you mentioned. As to why said NPCs want to live there, it could be a number of reasons ranging anywhere from economic opportunity to just simply preferring the stricter environment for safety reasons.

But I agree, once you get zombies walking down the street holding hands and singing doowop classics, it really does call into question why your common blacksmith or turnup merchant would want to live there. And that will always be true, even "In the Still of the Night".

[Xarge VI]

I was under the impression that Sencliff already is protected by the settlement raid rule.

If not- putting it under that, and allowing non inked to buy basic quarters would maybe solve multiple issues.

[ClockworkRed]

There is no system in place in Sencliff to expell anyone from a quarter. So it's usually resolved by PVP who rules over the docks should there be crews or players with very opposing views.
I think it works cause there is usually kind of agreement between players what a Pirate is. There are of course differences e.g. should they oppose or tolerate slavers.
But then there is also a lot of general agreement, e.g. that they are the antagonists to Cordor.

When you invite other evil factions there that can have same privileges as Pirates it could get a bit messy to sort out what the place stands for.

[The Amazing Squidman]

I was under the impression that Sencliff already is protected by the settlement raid rule.

If not- putting it under that, and allowing non inked to buy basic quarters would maybe solve multiple issues.

Please do not allow non-inked to buy quarters in Sencliff. Other settlements already have a problem of outsiders hogging all their best quarters. If anything quarters should have stricter requirements on who is allowed to live there, you should be a citizen, be the correct race(s), and it should be a lot more expensive so we don't have groups of brand new characters still doing their Cordor writs buying up half a dozen desirable properties at once.

[l3laze]

Fully warded killsquads tend to appear in Sencliff docks right after a ship gets attacked on the sea - not because somebody created a zombie or let a goblin in.

How much of that is the fact Sencliff has aligned with capital-e Evil, in the UD, necromancers, and warlocks? Fiends and undead aren't exactly uncommon on their docks. It makes for an easy case to convince others they are, actually, vile, as opposed to bandits. To me, this shows the opposite point you wanted to make; a surface settlement that is capital-e Evil is going to have super problems without that protection.

Would the same response be there if they didn't have that?

Sencliff is a free port, welcoming a duergar exiled from their clan, a drow who attempted to poison their matron, the corrupt guard, the guard who is tired of serving a King, a merchant who has lost everything and is in debt and can no longer pay his taxes. Sencliff being a free city, opens its port to anyone who intends to live free from laws and morals, it is not even in Arelith but in a remote island. Precisely for this reason you can find both the necromancer who wants to build his undead army and the fatherwho does not want repercussions on his family for having deserted the guards and the King.

The main problem with PvP is that this could not be done due to settlements rules, which Sencliff does not seem to have seen the incessant presence of ganksquads. I personally reported two similar incidents in the past two or three months, I even asked the staff if it was possible to make a public announcement saying that Sencliff, although not a settlement, has in all respects the settlement rules regarding raids and mass pvp and it is clear that a place like Sencliff, which is not Andunor, needs more concise and clear rules given that the population is smaller thanthe Underdark.

Long story short, it wouldn't make sense to have an evil settlement on the Surface if one of the few places currently present doesn't have clear rules on raids and severe punishments for those who break these rules, having a similar settlement would have the same and identical problems that Sencliff has, if it doesn't get worse, because it would be enough to stay hidden in the surrounding areas and hit those who come out of that settlement, this is because it would be labeled as an ''evil settlement'' and anyone who comes out of there is evil or has something to hide.

[Peacelily]

I'm not saying Sencliff isn't all these things. I'm saying that, as Sencliff has, and does, accept things that are undeniably capital-e Evil, then - they've taken that step beyond banditry. It's not enough to say 'I've rejected the laws of man', but they've gone beyond that. Necromancy, fiendish summoning, are not simply violations of human law, but cosmic violations of the natural order. They are crimes against the world as a whole.

Now, do I think Sencliff should be protected from gank squads (or disguised Lefrics!)? Yes. However, pretending Sencliff are just a rebellious bunch isn't true. They've gone beyond that, in who and what they've accepted, who they work with, and so asking why they're targeted is, at this point, deliberately missing the difference between evil and Evil, as discussed above.

Also, I don't think saying 'you can't work to do something new without fixing this first' is letting the conversation move on. It should be part of an overall conversation, and having strong rules on inter-settlement conflict as part of that is definitely something you want to include

[Xarge VI]

Please do not allow non-inked to buy quarters in Sencliff. Other settlements already have a problem of outsiders hogging all their best quarters. If anything quarters should have stricter requirements on who is allowed to live there, you should be a citizen, be the correct race(s), and it should be a lot more expensive so we don't have groups of brand new characters still doing their Cordor writs buying up half a dozen desirable properties at once.

My impression has been that there is always free quarters in Sencliff. I also think that the houses and crew houses should be for pirates only. But those little quarters and bank vaults could be free for all.