The current state of Wharftown

[Marsi]

wtf i hate cordor now

[-XXX-]

Why? Cordor's awsome! Giving too much IC power to it's PC representatives merely inhibits IG conflict - that's what I'm saying.

[Lorkas]

It wasn't really the PCs in charge in Cordor who made this happen, it was the devs for reasons outlined above. The current PC leader of Cordor can't order the destruction of another settlement and expect the devs to just comply.

The problem here was a lack of respect for the setting. On the one-on-one level, and even on the small battle, Wharftown PCs could roleplay from a place of power, because they had more PK-ability than Cordor did at the time of this conflict. However, on the scale of war, Wharftown simply can't compete with Cordor in terms of resources. At least, not in direct PvP conflict. It was a lack of respect for the setting to continuously RP that they could, and Edward Cordor's proclamation was meant to call attention to the fact that the setting suggests that in a war, Wharftown PCs (no matter how great they are at PKing) are RPing from a position of weakness. It was the refusal to accept that aspect of the setting that was the real problem.

As outlined above, there were many potential paths that Wharftown PC leadership could've taken besides logging off, sending forum PMs, making forum posts, or talking about having a land-based PvP confrontation while Cordor was preparing to bombard them from sea. They simply refused to pursue them.

[-XXX-]

Those are perfectly valid arguments and I agree with the majority of what you have stated, however:

It wasn't really the PCs in charge in Cordor who made this happen, it was the devs for reasons outlined above. The current PC leader of Cordor can't order the destruction of another settlement and expect the devs to just comply.

While it's true that Cordor's officials can't play the "King Edward's fleet card" by themselves, they took a part in the initial phases of the IG conflict. So in essence the analagy here is not unlike you having a ripped big brother who you can't really order around on one hand, but who will come charging to your aid whenever you start an argument with someone and things escalate on the other hand.

Furthermore, the setting argument arises the following questions:
- why start an IG conflict with Cordor? Ultimately your character/faction is going to lose (and yes, while it can be fun to forge a narrative in which your character loses, knowing the outcome every single time gets old after some time)
- why not ally with Cordor? Better join the winning side! (winning's fun! This is a game and many players gravitate towards winning in games - who could blame them?)
- why oppose Cordor's allies? You'll get steamrolled as pretty much everyone on the island is trying to get on Cordor's good side for practical reasons (certain choices can easily pit your character against pretty much everyone else on the island, so in essence it's not just opposing Cordor, but any surface settlement)

TBH the above seems a little anti-climactic to me and leaves me wondering what room for future gratifying IG conflict does this leave. I'd argue that maybe the setting itself might require a second look and re-evaluation at some point.

[Umskiptar]

Conclusion, don't pretend the NPCs don't exist and assume they will not react to anything you do.

[Mr_Rieper]

Those are perfectly valid arguments and I agree with the majority of what you have stated, however:

It wasn't really the PCs in charge in Cordor who made this happen, it was the devs for reasons outlined above. The current PC leader of Cordor can't order the destruction of another settlement and expect the devs to just comply.

While it's true that Cordor's officials can't play the "King Edward's fleet card" by themselves, they took a part in the initial phases of the IG conflict. So in essence the analagy here is not unlike you having a ripped big brother who you can't really order around on one hand, but who will come charging to your aid whenever you start an argument with someone and things escalate on the other hand.

Furthermore, the setting argument arises the following questions:
- why start an IG conflict with Cordor? Ultimately your character/faction is going to lose (and yes, while it can be fun to forge a narrative in which your character loses, knowing the outcome every single time gets old after some time)
- why not ally with Cordor? Better join the winning side! (winning's fun! This is a game and many players gravitate towards winning in games - who could blame them?)
- why oppose Cordor's allies? You'll get steamrolled as pretty much everyone on the island is trying to get on Cordor's good side for practical reasons (certain choices can easily pit your character against pretty much everyone else on the island, so in essence it's not just opposing Cordor, but any surface settlement)

TBH the above seems a little anti-climactic to me and leaves me wondering what room for future gratifying IG conflict does this leave. I'd argue that maybe the setting itself might require a second look and re-evaluation at some point.

There's mechanical strength, and there's theoretical strength.

If your crew can PvP well, you have mechanical strength.

If your faction has formed alliances with other factions and influential people, or they have some theoretical influence over the NPCs (being a settlement leader) then you have "lore" strength.

You cannot win every fight through PvP. Sometimes you need to win through politics or pressure. And while you can knock around the characters from Cordor in PvP, on a theoretical strength level, Wharftown CANNOT compete against Cordor on its own. You need alliances, agreements, mercenaries, backups, blackmail, spies, political connections. If you're not looking for ways to bring this to life in RP, then you're going to lose.

In simpler terms, we can't be surprised when a level 10 gets knocked around by a level 30. Likewise, you can't be surprised when an "underleveled" settlement with no backup gets knocked around by a bigger, more powerful one. It's not impossible to beat Cordor, you just can't think that PvP is the be-all and end-all of who wins. Starting a war with them IC means that you are looking to compete on a lore-strength level, not just random PvP skirmishes.

Cordor is like a character in their epics. Not invulnerable, just very powerful but can still be beaten with numbers, effort and a cunning plan. It's not at all this unstoppable "big brother" figure.

[-XXX-]

I'll buy that argument the moment Guldorand forms an alliance opposing Cordor. For as long as every single surface settlement remains an ally of Cordor, the above remains a pure theoretical concept with no foundation in IG reality whatsoever.

[Mr_Rieper]

Well, can you think of a good reason to side with Wharftown over Cordor?

...


I can't. My character certainly couldn't have, either.

[The GrumpyCat]

Re XXX

- why start an IG conflict with Cordor? Ultimately your character/faction is going to lose (and yes, while it can be fun to forge a narrative in which your character loses, knowing the outcome every single time gets old after some time)
- why not ally with Cordor? Better join the winning side! (winning's fun! This is a game and many players gravitate towards winning in games - who could blame them?)
- why oppose Cordor's allies? You'll get steamrolled as pretty much everyone on the island is trying to get on Cordor's good side for practical reasons (certain choices can easily pit your character against pretty much everyone else on the island, so in essence it's not just opposing Cordor, but any surface settlement)

This is less about conflict, and more about War.

Wharftown, for many IG and OOC years had been at WAR with Cordor on and off.
To an extent this is fine, the justification that Cordor npcs were pretty chilled about it, yeah it was bad but it's one fishing village. But after it happening over, and over, and over and over and over again, and lately with it being so vicious, Cordor basicaly said, 'Right. I've had enough. We're done.'

From an IC view point- the difference here is this: Yes, repeatedly declairing war on a major power is Dumb. It's like Ireland declairing war against the entire USA. Ireland is going to loose. If the Government of Ireland started sending troops to attack the USA, then for a while the USA might ignore it, but after a period they'd go 'No. No. We need to stop this.'

However.

A terrorist organization within Ireland might be able to get away with a lot more. Likewise yes, maybe declairing full out WAR on Cordor is a bad idea. But doing stuff against it generally is probably fine, in that the entirity of Cordor's Navy won't mobalize against one mad wizard. Likewise it would take a lot for Sencliff to pee them off that much, though they can still pee off PCs enough to create a reaction.

There's a reason why shortly after Wharf's fall, the war system was removed.

Why start an IC conflict with Cordor if you can't Win? Well - what's your defintion of 'winning?' If the answer is 'Cordor is a smoking pile of rubble' then uh, well, you're not likely to ever 'win.' Likewise with Bendir, Guldorand ect. Big server changes rarely happen like that.
If your idea is to make good roleplay, good drama, good story, to effect pcs around you ect - then that's all good reasons to make IC conflict!
That's always been the case though. Winning against any major settlment is never, never, never a likelyhood.

My suggestion? Never take on any task with the expecation of winning, with the idea the 'Win' will be fun. Do it for the joy of the journey. Yes, maybe your character won't end up standing upon a pile of Cordor's rubble, cacklilng. But maybe they'll cause enough trouble, enough menace, enough fun on the way to aiming for that - that it'll be all worth while anyway.

*Hope any irish folks don't mind me using this as an example, it's just a fairly safe one, that i know about, that seems a good idea.

EDIT: I would imagine... I would hope... that if Cordor went mad with power, that if it started sacrificing elves in the street, enslaving dwarves, demanding thousands of gold from Guldorand per day, that the settlments of the isle might band together against it! I mean- that's the heroic thing to do yes? But generally Cordor is quite neutral and at least at the time of Wharf's demites, that settlment was known to be the 'Lawful Evil' settlment amidst a collection of other settlments that were more Good aligned.

[Mr_Rieper]

I'll buy that argument the moment Guldorand forms an alliance opposing Cordor. For as long as every single surface settlement remains an ally of Cordor, the above remains a pure theoretical concept with no foundation in IG reality whatsoever.

I'd also like to add that currently, while Cordor is at peace with everyone, they are certainly not in any alliances. Bendir is independent as well. Guldorand, Brogendenstein and Myon are all allies. Cordor is not part of that, and has never been part of the Coalition.

Also, this obsession with creating conflict is unhealthy. Aim for progress, not conflict. If you learn something, inspire something or change something, even if it is your own character, you have progressed. If your settlement's story, your character and your faction are all in exactly the same place as it was before, it was a waste of time. Always be looking for things that move both your character and other people's forward. A story is not interesting if there is no result to the excitement. Yes, even losing is progress, if you allow it to be.

In a morbid way, Wharftown has progressed. It used to be something, now it is something else. It metamorphosized from a town to a place of history, all because of player actions. That isn't a failure, that's a triumph. Fall on your knees and praise the universe that the server isn't this static, unchanging thing. Don't feel despair when you are confronted with heavy decisions, don't look at it and give up. Roleplay it out. Arelith is a living, breathing world. If you respect it and roleplay, things will be alright.

[-XXX-]

Why start an IC conflict with Cordor if you can't Win? Well - what's your defintion of 'winning?' If the answer is 'Cordor is a smoking pile of rubble' then uh, well, you're not likely to ever 'win.' Likewise with Bendir, Guldorand ect. Big server changes rarely happen like that.
If your idea is to make good roleplay, good drama, good story, to effect pcs around you ect - then that's all good reasons to make IC conflict!
That's always been the case though. Winning against any major settlment is never, never, never a likelyhood.

I did not write down anything about winning over Cordor. I wrote down that starting a conflict with Cordor will result in your character/faction losing. There's a difference. IMO establishing parity in an ongoing IG conflict can contribute a lot to RP. The setting however does not allow for that option.
I'm not really complaining here, I merely voiced my personal concern with the state of things (current and past) and proposed a solution - either remove Cordor from any further conflicts by removing PC representation of it as a settlement (this means that there would not be any PC magisters, guards, chancellors or whoever who could start conflicts with other factions - if they want conflict, they can do it as an independent faction on equal footing with everyone else) or introduce a simmilarly large and powerful settlement as a counterweight. Is this a fantastic optimal solution? Is it even necessary? IDK. Worth considering? Maybe, dunno... brainstorming here, really.

[-XXX-]

Also, this obsession with creating conflict is unhealthy. Aim for progress, not conflict. If you learn something, inspire something or change something, even if it is your own character, you have progressed. If your settlement's story, your character and your faction are all in exactly the same place as it was before, it was a waste of time. Always be looking for things that move both your character and other people's forward. A story is not interesting if there is no result to the excitement. Yes, even losing is progress, if you allow it to be.

It's not really an obsession. It's just that every compelling story includes some sort of struggle or conflict, or risks being kind of boring and dry. Likewise, an ongoing IG conflict is the best way to include a large number of characters, drive imagination of players and further the RP environment (so yes, in a way progress). Conflict does not really equal competitive PvP fest. There's a difference.

Also, you know... Winston Churchill: "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."

[Mr_Rieper]

You know what, let's commit to this discussion. You certainly aren't the only person who feels that way, -XXX-, so let's talk and figure this out. I'm going to try to understand your side.

It seems like you feel Cordor has an unfair advantage in serious conflicts, and that it kills many interesting stories before they begin, due to the uneven playing field? That it feels like the admins will always take Cordor's side, no matter what, and therefore it is really unfair of them to get involved in player fights?

In terms of other players, it also seems like you feel players naturally gravitate towards the winning side, so the deck is even more stacked in Cordor's favour? That it's impossible for an evil faction to survive in the face of Cordor's onslaught, and that there is a tyranny of the majority in player politics?

I'm trying to get a better idea of what you're saying. Am I on the right track here?

[Aodh Lazuli]

It's not really an obsession. It's just that every compelling story includes some sort of struggle or conflict, or risks being kind of boring and dry. Likewise, an ongoing IG conflict is the best way to include a large number of characters, drive imagination of players and further the RP environment (so yes, in a way progress). Conflict does not really equal competitive PvP fest. There's a difference.

Also, you know... Winston Churchill: "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."

Sure... Adversity and conflict are absolutely fantastic things in any narrative being created - "X does Y despite Z", is an awesome story... But you're taking an extraordinarily narrow view of what adversity and conflict could potentially be.

[-XXX-]

You know what, let's commit to this discussion. You certainly aren't the only person who feels that way, -XXX-, so let's talk and figure this out. I'm going to try to understand your side.

It seems like you feel Cordor has an unfair advantage in serious conflicts, and that it kills many interesting stories before they begin, due to the uneven playing field? That it feels like the admins will always take Cordor's side, no matter what, and therefore it is really unfair of them to get involved in player fights?

In terms of other players, it also seems like you feel players naturally gravitate towards the winning side, so the deck is even more stacked in Cordor's favour? That it's impossible for an evil faction to survive in the face of Cordor's onslaught, and that there is a tyranny of the majority in player politics?

I'm trying to get a better idea of what you're saying. Am I on the right track here?

Yeah, that's pretty much the point I'm trying to make actually. With the caveat that it does not really have to be an evil faction/settlement. Opposing Cordor does not necessarily have to mean that said characters/faction are evil. Cordor can have (and has had in the past) evil representatives too (though admittedly their most "hyenous act" was the embezzlement of the city's coffers).

[Mr_Rieper]

I'm trying to get a better idea of what you're saying. Am I on the right track here?

Yeah, that's pretty much the point I'm trying to make actually. With the caveat that it does not really have to be an evil faction/settlement. Opposing Cordor does not necessarily have to mean that said characters/faction are evil. Cordor can have (and has had in the past) evil representatives too (though admittedly their most "hyenous act" was the embezzlement of the city's coffers).

There are many different ways of looking at it, and if you were to look at it from a gaming perspective? From a numbers and statistics perspective? Yes, Cordor is way overpowered and needs to be nerfed. Everybody deserves a fair chance and one settlement shouldn't be stronger than another.

But how boring would that be? NWN is a game, but Arelith is a roleplay server. One with a story, and history, and reasons why Cordor is stronger. There are no numbers and statistics involved in it, and it can be used to our advantage as well. As was said in Game of Thrones: "A small man can cast a very large shadow". And you can do that, with story. If you can convince Cordor that it's a bad idea to attack you, they won't. You can influence things outside of the mechanics by giving the other side reasons NOT to attack you.

And unfortunately, in this regard, Wharftown brought a knife to a gunfight. There were historical reasons to destroy Wharftown. Cordor suffered no (immediate) consequences from it, so there was no reason to hesitate beyond saving the civilians first. Their ally, Amn, won brownie points with Cordor for assisting them. Another reason they were eager. The mayor of Wharftown didn't give them any reasons to stall the attack. The rest of the Isle had no reason to try to save Wharftown either.

In the end, there was no convincing argument why Wharftown should've been saved, while there were MANY that it should be destroyed. And that is why Wharftown lost. Cordor's ships, armies and wealth are useless if they don't have a good reason to use them. The moral of the story is play to your strengths, not Cordor's. Give them reasons to avoid involving the king and the army, and you've won. They only have an advantage if you LET them have an advantage.

I don't think it was unfair for the admins to get involved at all. They were given a reason to get involved, after all. And in the end, there were more reasons to maintain the integrity of Arelith's setting, rather than try to keep things fair. Because at the end of the day, this is not just a game. It's a roleplay server, where things are not always fair.

[FrozenSolid]

Wharftown did have a lot of back and forth with Cordor. Wharftown struck Cordor /A LOT/ including physical assaults, capturing PCs, (Rip Faeren) raiding on the outskirts of Cordor, or even infiltrating the barracks and stealing things. The RP Was endless, as long as that War went on almost all RP revolved around Wharftown. And Wharftown /had/ options to defeat us. But when those options were presented, Armenius sent Cordor an Urn full of dead Cordorians he had chopped up and burned.

When your PC Response to an Island "Super power" is "Here's your people I killed, let rot in some hole, then dug up and burned and sent to you." What do you think the appropriate response is?

"Oh haha you got us again"

Or "My name is King Edward of Cordor. You killed my people. Prepare to die."

I can say that the RP involved with Wharftown was /abundant/ in many ways and far reaching.

I do support "Conflict" RP. Because I think characters should hold true to their roots. And if that means conflict then heck yeah! Bring it on! I heard some settlements and Characters stayed out of the Wharftown War, for a variety of OOC reasons some including "We can't beat Armenius in PVP so we'll just ignore this."

I think it's laughable that the settlements of Arelith avoided the War for it's entire duration with /Full/ knowledge of the evil going on there, then once Wharftown is gone, they all jump down Cordor's throat for being evil and out of control.

Did Guldorand, Brog, Or Myon steer their boats in front of Wharftown to try and block Cordor/AMn from destroying it? Did the Elves ever answer Armenius when he declared war on them? Or just hide up in Myon? Did the dwarves march down from Brogendenstein to try and force Armenius into a deal? Did Guldorand offer to smuggle Refugees out of Wharftown into their settlement?

No. Everyone was to busy OOCLY, being Forum Warriors and complaining on Discord rather then trying to make an IC impact.

Wharftown was one of the most intense RP's I have had on this server ever. My character was involved head on with the RP and I didn't shy away from it because of OOC knowledge. Yeah it was rough. Yeah my character got beat up. Yeah I had some issues with people OOCLY but they were resolved and we went on and the RP concluded and I'd never felt so engaged in Arelith before. It was great.

[Mr_Rieper]

No. Everyone was to busy OOCLY, being Forum Warriors and complaining on Discord rather then trying to make an IC impact.

Yeah, don't do that. Nothing good will come of that.

Should everybody else on the server apologize for not getting involved? Perhaps if they regret it. Once again, it all comes down to reasons. Perhaps it was OOC laziness that caused us to stay out of it, or perhaps it was an IC reason. Which do you think deserves the benefit of the doubt?

It's not about the conflict. It's about the effect, the result. And by result, I don't mean winning or losing. I mean how your character reacts to it, and takes it into account. Or how your faction does. Or how your settlement does. Or how the server does. Starting conflict does not entitle people to drag everybody unwillingly into their mess, and this is the problem with obsessing about causing conflict. It's easier to encourage people to get involved by showing them what they will gain, even if that gain is a mere emotional moment in RP, or developing somebody else's story, somewhere on the server.

[Nitro]

Why start an IC conflict with Cordor if you can't Win? Well - what's your defintion of 'winning?' If the answer is 'Cordor is a smoking pile of rubble' then uh, well, you're not likely to ever 'win.' Likewise with Bendir, Guldorand ect. Big server changes rarely happen like that.
If your idea is to make good roleplay, good drama, good story, to effect pcs around you ect - then that's all good reasons to make IC conflict!
That's always been the case though. Winning against any major settlment is never, never, never a likelyhood.

I did not write down anything about winning over Cordor. I wrote down that starting a conflict with Cordor will result in your character/faction losing. There's a difference. IMO establishing parity in an ongoing IG conflict can contribute a lot to RP. The setting however does not allow for that option.

A bit late to the party, but I'd just like to point out that there's been plenty of times in the past when Wharftown or other factions have been in conflict and open war with Cordor and won, just not the 'complete desolation' kind of victory, but in the sense that councillors were deposed or killed, fees were payed and treatises annulled. So it is quite possible to win against Cordor in conflict.

[Sab1]

I'm glad wharftown is gone because for too long after too many things you would get the big deal, nothing going to change or here we go again attitude. My guess is that's the reason so many stayed out of this was the ooc feeling of big deal here we go again. I've done it, after hearing drow attacking for a week straight, you simply start to ignore it. So I guess is many simply were I'm not getting involved in Wharftown causing trouble again, also if you look at Myon's history the city itself rarely declares war on settlements. Instead telling its people to do what you feel you must. Wharftown becomes evil, starts trouble, some pvp, and good takes over for a little bit and then it becomes evil again. All the people who want to cause chaos in Cordor flocks to wharftown, starts trouble, repeat. Honestly I think some didn't take the consequences of their actions seriously, and simply assumed so what at the end of the war we will still be here In wharftown. I think this shows if you push things far enough that there are ic consequences and they aren't always good.

[-XXX-]

I think that we should separate the issues here.
a) Wharftown's destruction was a fun event, opinions on it might vary, it still happened, it's over, let's move on - that's pretty much what I have to say about that.

b) The intervention of the NPC fleet set in motion a precedent (whether intentional or not) tied to:

it is quite possible to win against Cordor in conflict.

Because it arises the question "is it though?". Or rather "will people even bother to try?". Finally (though exaggerating a bit here, admittedly) "why bother playing a character who isn't either a LG Cordorian triadic paladin or a subtle villain who pretends to be a LG Cordorian triadic paladin and never makes his move?".


Also, stop using discord people. Discord is cancer.

[FrozenSolid]

No. Everyone was to busy OOCLY, being Forum Warriors and complaining on Discord rather then trying to make an IC impact.

Yeah, don't do that. Nothing good will come of that.

Should everybody else on the server apologize for not getting involved? Perhaps if they regret it. Once again, it all comes down to reasons. Perhaps it was OOC laziness that caused us to stay out of it, or perhaps it was an IC reason. Which do you think deserves the benefit of the doubt?

It's not about the conflict. It's about the effect, the result. And by result, I don't mean winning or losing. I mean how your character reacts to it, and takes it into account. Or how your faction does. Or how your settlement does. Or how the server does. Starting conflict does not entitle people to drag everybody unwillingly into their mess, and this is the problem with obsessing about causing conflict. It's easier to encourage people to get involved by showing them what they will gain, even if that gain is a mere emotional moment in RP, or developing somebody else's story, somewhere on the server.

I am going to do that. Because I think it's true. Feel free to disagree but this forum thread is a good example. People have spent more time complaining in the feedback thread then being involved with their Character in game. If the same amount of effort to Blast DMs, Admins, and players people don't like was put into RPing In game maybe the outcome would have been different.

In an RP conflict you can't just tap out because you don't like it. You've got to roll with what happens you can't just decide to quit when things aren't optimal. That's part of the fun. If you don't want conflict then don't put a character in a situation where it'll be put into it. I'd stay out of factions because those are led by other players and you as a faction member have to deal with their choices. That creates big gains in RP and story development. Everyone is going for Conflict with Cordor right now, but no one is bold enough to actually do anything. All these leaders and all they can amount to is verbal slander.

I'm waiting to see Faction leaders and settlement leaders stand up and engage things with RP in mind and realize the tools they have at their disposal to make change. Reach out to DMs use your settlements, coordinate events, communicate about "Hey I have an idea that my (Settlement/Faction) could do (X) to try and influence (X) what do you think?"

More time spent on character development and pushing the story. Less time complaining in Discord about how awful Dms, and certain players are.

All the tools are there to push characters IC and In Game desires people just need to decide to use them.

[Nitro]

I think that we should separate the issues here.
a) Wharftown's destruction was a fun event, opinions on it might vary, it still happened, it's over, let's move on - that's pretty much what I have to say about that.

b) The intervention of the NPC fleet set in motion a precedent (whether intentional or not) tied to:

it is quite possible to win against Cordor in conflict.

Because it arises the question "is it though?". Or rather "will people even bother to try?". Finally (though exaggerating a bit here, admittedly) "why bother playing a character who isn't either a LG Cordorian triadic paladin or a subtle villain who pretends to be a LG Cordorian triadic paladin and never makes his move?".


Also, stop using discord people. Discord is cancer.

I'd hardly call it a precedent though. Light's keep was destroyed by hordes of devils, and before that, Stonehold by team good. Settlements getting destroyed when the plot calls for it has been a thing going on for quite some time in Arelith.

[Aodh Lazuli]

Did the Elves ever answer Armenius when he declared war on them? Or just hide up in Myon? Did the dwarves march down from Brogendenstein to try and force Armenius into a deal? Did Guldorand offer to smuggle Refugees out of Wharftown into their settlement?

In order...

- Wharftown declared war on Myon three RL days (give or take) before Wharftown was due to explode. The WT leadership that declared war on Myon was nowhere to be seen by this point. There was nobody to roleplay or fight with. It looked petulent, silly and a total waste of everyone's time and energy.

- Why would Brog have given a rat's left bollock?

- Yes, Guldorand did offer to take in refugees, and people from Guldorand were actively offering Guld's services to all but the WT leadership. Infact, one of Guldorand's more active people is a Wharftown refugee, and after the event, Guldorand sheltered the person who last-minute usurped Armenius as mayor... In addition, Guldorand set up a medical station just outside the town on the day of WT's destruction, offering services to those fleeing or injured.

If you're going to ask accusatory questions, at least make them half way difficult to answer.

[-XXX-]

From what I can tell, Stonehold's destruction was a result of the dwindling numbers of the Banite faction (it was not justifiable for a handful of characters to hold such a big "guildhouse").
The fall of Benwick was completely arbitrary (hence why so many players see is as controversial to this date).
The destruction of Wharftown was a result of "Cordor has a large NPC army and can raze a fishing town". Seeing how all other settlements on the island are puny and inferior to Cordor, only the last instance sets a precedence (for example, what is to prevent Cordor from razing, say, Guldorand if they choose to do so in the future?).