Settlement Laws, should a DM Intervene.

[MisterMadara]

I have been playing on Arelith for a while now and having returned after the EE revamp I have one glaring issue with settlements of recent.

Whilst I understand that settlement rules and laws are a part of immersion and leadership, I feel that things are becoming for to IRL with regards to the number and the detail of laws, put to that, thst every new leader changes then in a whim.

Right now, Settlement Factions are suffering as a result of this constant and unmanageable change. I would propose that a community agreed standard be met and introduced by the DM's to aid City RP.

Long ago their were Misdemeanours, Felony and Capital crimes. Each had roughly 6 laws under it and each had a pretty defined punishment. Guard RP everywhere thrived. Now, it is almost impossible to maintain a roll in such a faction due to the looming and overwhelming fact, your RP is based on the whim of the next leader.

[flower]

I cannot imagine how you want DM to intervene in settlement run by a PC?

It was always like that, that laws and rules were formed by the ruler.

[MisterMadara]

Every Settlement on the server is influenced by their intended design and direction.

Myon is an Elven City, run by Elves. This was implemented and is maintained by the community and DM's.

The Burrow, Brogendenstein and Bling are all very heavily influenced by their settings, they are racial settlements and as a result, their is an essence of ore-defined order and structure that pre-ludes any character creation. It allows for a more fluid RP and a simpler approach to the settlements as a whole.

Andunor is a settlement for Outcasts and UD Races, again, this is defined by the design of the settlement and it's intended use by the Staff and it is influenced to remain that way with continuous support from Staff.

Guldorand, whilst not as strict, has had several interactions with DM hosted events, gently nudging the settlement back into its intended design rather than have players create dynamic and unrealistic ideas thst cannot be implemented.

Cordor, also had this design when it had a Council of Three that served under Vetinari, several times he made an appearance to direct the city into its intended role as a Starter City and a hub for RP over PvP and Wars.

Now whilst Guldorand remains an exception, like Cordor. All other settlements retain this pre-lude, this widely agreed upon stance due to Religious or Racial settings. Cordor and Guldorand have their entire state of RP controlled by a single player and little external influence and it has been known to happen time and time again for a new Chancellor to wipe the slate, fire everyone and bin all fixtures to make their own.

This is very damaging the the community as it shows that the City is an extremely unreliable source of sustainable RP. For some players whom are more (probably the wrong word) submissive to settings and order, it's unpleasant. They want to just roll up, play a part without needing to create a faction, or do the political stuff. But it's not presently possible.

My idea is that the King and whomever heads Guldorand above the mayor make a few simple laws that are irreversible, something that is sustainable and balanced for new players to understand and build their characters upon and for those less willing to be involved in large political matter.

The Chancellor can still add and edit their own things, but not at the cost of an entire faction having to spend several days reading and learning this new material like homework, else they are no longer able to play the role their character has.

[flower]

Cordor was always unstable. And each chancellor needs player support to get into office so it is not whim on single player. If one PC went against all others in Cordor it would not manage to do a single thing.

And at the moment there is noone above myor of guldorand unless players decide to play so

[MisterMadara]

I assumed every settlement had some manner of NPC boss, in case something was required by Staff.

As for the instability, my idea is not to rid it all entirely. By all means, the political warfare creates RP to the other spectrum of characters and players on the server, but their should be a "King's Standard" in place to afford some people a more relaxed and stable approach, as it's just plain fact that not all people have the capacity or the time to manage such labouress endeavours on a game they intend to have fun on.

[Lady Astray]

I've had one thing like this happen during my time on the server. Will try to explain it without giving anything too specific because I'm not trying to name and shame anyone, but it does sort of tie into this thread. Basically I was part of a faction that had a long tradition as the standing military of a settlement. One day my faction leader had to kill someone because he was being unreasonable, disobeying orders, and trying to kill another member of that faction over something they had very little to control over. The settlement leader kicks out my faction leader because of this, and says we'll get a new one. Of course I was sad my faction leader and their closest friends all left the settlement after that, and it meant I got to RP less, go on adventures less, etc.

I tried to stay and be optimistic. Tried being nice to the new faction leader. That is, until they changed the name of the faction, booted all of us who stayed out of the faction's HQ, then brought in their own pre-existing faction to replace us. These events caused the majority of my faction to leave the settlement outright. On top of that a lot of top political figures and key role players in the settlement also left. After a while the new faction leader quit, along with the person who instigated the situation which caused my old faction leader to step down in the first place. Now the settlement is pretty much barren.

I've stuck around trying to help newcomers and contribute to the RP so that the settlement might someday replenish its numbers. But it is sad so many have left. Like I said, I get to RP and adventure significantly less now, because there is hardly anyone left to RP or adventure with. Out of the few people left, a lot of them are opposed to my character IC simply because she had the audacity to speak out against disbanding a centuries old military and refusing to swear any kind of oath of fealty to the settlement or its leader. I feel like an outcast in the settlement just because I insisted that the other people who arrived after I did follow old traditions.

For example, imagine you are in the U.S. Army. You're fighting a war against some random Middle Eastern country for oil or whatever. You swear to obey the president and go on many missions, forming close bonds with your fellow soldiers. Then one day some Canadian shows up and starts shooting random civilians so your sergeant puts him down. Your sergeant gets fired, they replace the army with the Navy, and they immediately go up to Russia and start trying to provoke a nuclear war. That Canadian is promoted to a ranking officer and goes around telling everyone how bad your sergeant was and how useless the Army was and bragging about how he plans to disobey the president. You dare to speak out against it and you are made an outcast.

This sounds like a pretty ridiculous scenario right? It might be alright in a game of Civ V or something, but in a serious D&D session? It really feels like some people in an OOC attempt to seize power just disregarded the settlement's entire history and the feelings of all the other players in that settlement. None of this stuff that happened really makes sense to me from an IC perspective. And OOC it has caused a lot of resentment between certain players. A centuries old military shouldn't be able to rebrand itself and replace all its members on a whim without major protests and backlash. In such a situation I think a settlement leader should do more to put their foot down. I know if I was a settlement leader and the new military refused to swear any kind of oaths to obey me or act for the good of the city that would be a huge red flag and I'd probably exile some folks for treason.

I don't think this is an easy problem for the DM's to solve. They are only human and probably have their own personal biases. A lot of the fault lies with players for allowing such things to happen. I would have preferred everyone got together and found some RP solution rather than just leaving or making new characters. Enough of us left that we could have easily staged a coup and taken over the city by force, or voted in a new settlement leader. But because everyone was so frustrated and discouraged they all quit instead. And then the players who instigated all of this to begin with also quit. Those of us who stayed have to pick up the pieces and try to rebuild what was destroyed. Again, not trying to name and shame, so if you know who I'm talking about I'd rather you not say in this thread, but if you're one of those involved you should probably reflect on all this so it doesn't happen again to the next settlement you decide to take part in.

[Queen Titania]

Why are you asking the players at large if a DM should intervene? You should ask the DM team if a DM should intervene via report/PM, not feedback, then we can weigh in on it formally.

Informally, without investigating, I am going to assume this is about Cordor. This largely should be resolved IG. This probably stems from the player desire to cover e very loophole and every possible circumstance. If it is making it harder for your character to operate, isn't that the precise concern to raise up to the higher leadership in Cordor, so it can be changed?

If there are any serious level of questionable law-choices in regards to the setting, or you wish a formal look into it, PM away, it's a simple case to resolve ultimately. But my informal response here is to resolve this on your own IG.

[Royal Blood]

Myon has thrived with almost no written laws. I remember Cordor had a whole spreadsheet of laws, I think that was over board.

I think angst about fluid leadership change can make things wishy washy but someone will stabalize things eventually. That is just part of the RP!

[Royal Blood]

I've had one thing like this happen during my time on the server. Will try to explain it without giving anything too specific because I'm not trying to name and shame anyone, but it does sort of tie into this thread. Basically I was part of a faction that had a long tradition as the standing military of a settlement. One day my faction leader had to kill someone because he was being unreasonable, disobeying orders, and trying to kill another member of that faction over something they had very little to control over. The settlement leader kicks out my faction leader because of this, and says we'll get a new one. Of course I was sad my faction leader and their closest friends all left the settlement after that, and it meant I got to RP less, go on adventures less, etc.

I tried to stay and be optimistic. Tried being nice to the new faction leader. That is, until they changed the name of the faction, booted all of us who stayed out of the faction's HQ, then brought in their own pre-existing faction to replace us. These events caused the majority of my faction to leave the settlement outright. On top of that a lot of top political figures and key role players in the settlement also left. After a while the new faction leader quit, along with the person who instigated the situation which caused my old faction leader to step down in the first place. Now the settlement is pretty much barren.

I've stuck around trying to help newcomers and contribute to the RP so that the settlement might someday replenish its numbers. But it is sad so many have left. Like I said, I get to RP and adventure significantly less now, because there is hardly anyone left to RP or adventure with. Out of the few people left, a lot of them are opposed to my character IC simply because she had the audacity to speak out against disbanding a centuries old military and refusing to swear any kind of oath of fealty to the settlement or its leader. I feel like an outcast in the settlement just because I insisted that the other people who arrived after I did follow old traditions.

For example, imagine you are in the U.S. Army. You're fighting a war against some random Middle Eastern country for oil or whatever. You swear to obey the president and go on many missions, forming close bonds with your fellow soldiers. Then one day some Canadian shows up and starts shooting random civilians so your sergeant puts him down. Your sergeant gets fired, they replace the army with the Navy, and they immediately go up to Russia and start trying to provoke a nuclear war. That Canadian is promoted to a ranking officer and goes around telling everyone how bad your sergeant was and how useless the Army was and bragging about how he plans to disobey the president. You dare to speak out against it and you are made an outcast.

This sounds like a pretty ridiculous scenario right? It might be alright in a game of Civ V or something, but in a serious D&D session? It really feels like some people in an OOC attempt to seize power just disregarded the settlement's entire history and the feelings of all the other players in that settlement. None of this stuff that happened really makes sense to me from an IC perspective. And OOC it has caused a lot of resentment between certain players. A centuries old military shouldn't be able to rebrand itself and replace all its members on a whim without major protests and backlash. In such a situation I think a settlement leader should do more to put their foot down. I know if I was a settlement leader and the new military refused to swear any kind of oaths to obey me or act for the good of the city that would be a huge red flag and I'd probably exile some folks for treason.

I don't think this is an easy problem for the DM's to solve. They are only human and probably have their own personal biases. A lot of the fault lies with players for allowing such things to happen. I would have preferred everyone got together and found some RP solution rather than just leaving or making new characters. Enough of us left that we could have easily staged a coup and taken over the city by force, or voted in a new settlement leader. But because everyone was so frustrated and discouraged they all quit instead. And then the players who instigated all of this to begin with also quit. Those of us who stayed have to pick up the pieces and try to rebuild what was destroyed. Again, not trying to name and shame, so if you know who I'm talking about I'd rather you not say in this thread, but if you're one of those involved you should probably reflect on all this so it doesn't happen again to the next settlement you decide to take part in.

I don't think there is any question as to who you might be talking about. : )

All I will say is that if there are OOC questions I am happy to answer them but like TLDR I hate hate hate stagnation so I'll jump at on opportunities to give active characters boons and resources to do their thing and that was the only OOC choice that would affect things. It's a game world, things move fast also time is way faster too IG.

As far as events IG those are IG leading up to that resignation. None of it has to do with OOC things, at least on my side.

Anyways, if there is OOC anger msg me, otherwise IC angst or anger is fine!

[Lady Astray]

I don't think there is any question as to who you might be talking about. : )

All I will say is that if there are OOC questions I am happy to answer them but like TLDR I hate hate hate stagnation so I'll jump at on opportunities to give active characters boons and resources to do their thing and that was the only OOC choice that would affect things. It's a game world, things move fast also time is way faster too IG.

As far as events IG those are IG leading up to that resignation. None of it has to do with OOC things, at least on my side.

Anyways, if there is OOC anger msg me, otherwise IC angst or anger is fine!

Stagnation is bad and yes time does go a lot faster in the game. But it is good to have SOME stability and consistency. I think what the OP and myself are getting at is that it often makes little sense for such long-standing traditions and laws to be changed on a whim. Makes things a bit hard to keep up with for some and too chaotic for others. If I join a faction I like to know they will still exist tomorrow when I log in. I don't want to join the Frostblades and then wake up the next day to learn they are the Fire Archers and then the Thunder Hammers the next week.

[Ork]

No one is entitled to stability and consistency in an open world like Arelith. Dispel the thought because you'll be less disappointed when it occurs. If your character cares about these things, be inclusive & dynamic to attract like-minded people. For example, the Cordor Guard's change meant the abandonment of that structure. We lost the "guard" but allowed others to craft something novel or interesting in its place. It's my opinion players often get too fixated on relics and allow factions to persist long after their prime on nostalgia alone.

[MisterMadara]

Why are you asking the players at large if a DM should intervene? You should ask the DM team if a DM should intervene via report/PM, not feedback, then we can weigh in on it formally.

Informally, without investigating, I am going to assume this is about Cordor. This largely should be resolved IG. This probably stems from the player desire to cover e very loophole and every possible circumstance. If it is making it harder for your character to operate, isn't that the precise concern to raise up to the higher leadership in Cordor, so it can be changed?

If there are any serious level of questionable law-choices in regards to the setting, or you wish a formal look into it, PM away, it's a simple case to resolve ultimately. But my informal response here is to resolve this on your own IG.

To clarify. My writing this does not stem from hardships my own character has faced. They are presently a figure of authority with little to no hindrances.

But that does not change the fact that I possess the observation skills to see this for myself and find it to be one of the few aspects of Arelith that could be deemed poor.

As for why I picked this part of the forum to write it rather than report it to a DM? That is simple, in my mind there is no fault by the Playerbase, they are using the tools presently available to them. However, it's a simple fact that not all players have the same sense of responsibility when taking a position of Leadership and understanding that they are responsible for everyone's RP Quality and Potential during that time.

Why not post it here then? Because if the playerbase agrees that this feedback is accurate and that the instability of this rapid back and forth of IG changes are damaging to the the quality of RP on the servers, is it not your responsibility to look at it formally?

Though, my issue does not focus entirely on the realism in the laws. Also on how swiftly they can change, forcing players to have to adapt their role when it may not be their style or desire.

I am actually quite easy going and can change Yo suite a situation. But. I still think it can be seen negatively on the server

[Lady Astray]

Not saying anyone is entitled to stability. Just that it is a nice thing to have SOME of in an ever-changing world. But it has to be worked for and maintained by the players. Don't think this is anything the DM's can fix.

[clanogrady]

I think that, the issue isn't so much the lack of laws/stability and such but rather that it's neigh impossible to remove said people once they get into power. Another thing is, people who work for said government typically violates their own supposed laws and moral/ethical standards that are enforced upon the playerbase of said settlements thus creating a massive disparity in the ability to RP in said settlements.

Its impossible to bankrupt a settlement unless a person has access to the treasury or Warehouse and even then, scripts prevent the settlements from going below 10,000 coin.

Draining off resources doesn't force a new vote, and even then scripts prevent the resources from going below the needed resources at the end of year barring a bug drawing more resources than the protection.

The only avenue to remove a person from power is via the assassination mechanics, and that isn't possible to achieve if they never log in. In addition to that, the two assassinations in Cordor prompted a rather heated discussion on the whole fact of 1. Assassinations would become common thus leading to constant elections 2. Said assassinated person was able to run again without issue,

The only thing you can do is wait an entire 34 days RL just for the opportunity to try to vote them out, and we've seen settlements gain anywhere from 20-80 citizens. Or, the actions taken the new power drive away the community of players that would even attempt to remove said usurper thus creating the barren landscape.

I'm for a basic DM enforced laws in settlements because you should not be able to Assassinate the leader of a settlement and then get promoted to a high ranking official within it, especially when it was the Representative of the NPC power in question. Time and again it is stated that the elected official is the power/face of the NPC faction. The blatant disrespect for Murdering said Elected official and then not facing any repercussion for it doesn't make any sense.

[Red Ropes]

Myon has thrived with almost no written laws. I remember Cordor had a whole spreadsheet of laws, I think that was over board.

I think angst about fluid leadership change can make things wishy washy but someone will stabilize things eventually. That is just part of the RP!

Also, nothing lasts forever.

[sad_zav]

these all sound like issues that should be taken up in game

[The GrumpyCat]

No one is entitled to stability and consistency in an open world like Arelith. Dispel the thought because you'll be less disappointed when it occurs.

This is something always worth keeping in mind. Doesn't matter how much time, work, effort and people you put into a project, sooner or later it will fade and fall away. Don't let that bother you too much. Be proud when things stick, and accepting when things move.

Cordor has alwayas been a settlment that shifts and changes on a whim. It's the largest and most open settlment on the isle, and isa full of new players with new and interesting ideas. I for one actually love that crazy pot of chaos, and wouldn't change it for the world. If you prefer more stability in your settlment - take a look at Guldorand. Or (if you're running with a Dwarf/Elf/earthkin) maybe one of the other settlments.

Do DMs interfere with settlment running?

Well yes, sometimes we do.

First off we make sure that our server laws are obayed within said settlment laws (e.g. Doesn't matter if you say that, for example, no elf may own property in cordor - they can't be evicted without some form of face to face rp first.)

We also will work to an extent to make sure basic server lore is upheld. We don't get too restrictive about this, but certain actions will have severe consequences (e.g. 'Hay, let's let Drow and monster races lilve in Cordor, why not?')

And occasionaly we'll throw something into the background to make things more... interesting for settlments/settlment leaders. But generally speaking we respect the ability for leaders to run the city as they will.

Something to deal with In Game as mentioned. Don't like how a settlment leader runs things? That's fine. Challenge them in the next election then! Simple as.

[flower]

If your characters friends left or were ousted, and your character does not believe the superiors now, the best course of action is to pack up and follow your friends. You migth have discovered now that what matters only are companions of your character. Renounce your oath, follow friends up, and join their other faction.

Also it is not true that actions in Cordor never matter, quess why no single settlement has any good relationship with Cordor and why most of them usually stand firmly in opposition to Cordor.

[Echohawk]

A lack of DM hand holding is how it goes. I can tell you from my recent experience as Chancellor is that cord cuts both ways. We can be endlessly frustrated by a lack of support and enforcement as well with really blatantly obvious conflict groups still able to log and grief the city on while we're asleep or at work.

It actually causes a great deal of mental and emotional stress after a while. I won't even hide the fact it is a factor in why I rolled the character Freja Stillwater. Especially when constantly having to smile and pretend everything is okay while people constantly moan in my ear about how awesome things are. (I'm going to give a strong hint here, it's quite the opposite in case someone doesn't understand sarcasm or has english as a second language.)

I also learned from my first character here Sarina Dragonsong that you don't get to change things unless you get in charge. And that takes patience. Also from the same character, if you piss people off in game, expect to be punished. Don't beg to the DMs unless rules are being broken on the server level. Don't take it as if they're attacking you as a player, they're attacking a character.
I have been exiled before, I have had people come down into places where I've hidden and hunted me on sight. It's not always super fun, but at the same time...

It's just a game, and a single character.
If you don't like the way things are going, don't fight to skewer yourself harder.
(Even I find this mentality a bit draconian, but at the same time once you get past your pride, it's as honest and truthful a reality as there's ever going to be.)

Consider if you shouldn't just let the character either take a break on the shelf and return to them, whether it's a day, a week, a month. I know there are some people who go away for even a year at a time until they feel like it.
And I know for those that have never rolled, we do have some new people out there who may or may not have done their first, this prospect can seem world shattering and emotional.

It is, but
After you celebrate the joys, the highs and the lows. You get a reward, you get to start again. Starting as a low level not completely bogged down in politics and tensions and conflict. You become unknown again. For some that might be terrifying. But it really actually can be the greatest release I've experienced in this game.

I adore the DM team, and have clenched my own jaw wishing sometimes some eagle would sweep me off to Mordor, but the journey, the struggle, is in itself part of the story. I feel it's important for people to remember that.

And lastly, don't ask "Hey can there be another mechanic for me to utilize so that I can get my way?"
Do ask, "Am I having fun with this or am I just fighting?"

[Lady Astray]

If your characters friends left or were ousted, and your character does not believe the superiors now, the best course of action is to pack up and follow your friends. You migth have discovered now that what matters only are companions of your character. Renounce your oath, follow friends up, and join their other faction.

You're probably right.

[Royal Blood]

Someone mentioned that it is impossible to remove leaders but I and Clea were outsiders in Myon like just as I've never played there before, and I wasn't ever in the Myon discord.

Clea won Myon over by a lot of devoted time IG and some savy politics. So it is possible to oust I guess what I would say is the like 'in' canidate?

Cordor is likely a lot more difficult because you have soooo.many people to persuade. Myon has the advantage of being relatively small like 50 voters I think when Clea ran though now I think it's nearer 70.

The only mechanic change I -would- be for is maybe that you lose your citizen ship if you are not active enough? My thinking on this is to prevent situations where characters that are alts or sparsely active log on to vote and the candidates never have a chance to win that person's vote because their character isn't active enough to influence or be engaged.

Maybe it could be tied into resource donations like if you want to vote for a leader you actually need to be involved in the settlement beyond just paying the gold

Activity is tricky to gauge though, and time zones can make people appear inactive when in reality they are quite active etc. But that is just a thought on a change that might balance things more or at least force people who want to partake it voting to be engaged in the process more IC.

[flower]

The difference is that to exile an elven opponent in Myon has much larger disasterous consequences for the ruler than in Cordor. Elf ruler exiling opposing person can permanently damage own reputation by doing so and loose large portion of supporters if is acting in agressive and offensive manner towards opposition.

While in Cordor it does not matter.

[sad_zav]

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[Lady Astray]

The only mechanic change I -would- be for is maybe that you lose your citizen ship if you are not active enough? My thinking on this is to prevent situations where characters that are alts or sparsely active log on to vote and the candidates never have a chance to win that person's vote because their character isn't active enough to influence or be engaged.

I agreed with this at first but after thinking about it, players could just buy citizenship back for 10,000 gold and vote anyways. You'd have to ban them from buying citizenship for at least a couple of months if it gets revoked. And even then if an election goes up and the current leader asks them OOC to get on and vote it might have been over two months since they lost their citizenship for being inactive so they can still just buy it back anyways. Honestly if there are only 10-12 really active players in a settlement and somebody gets 50+ votes from a bunch of people that haven't logged in for a year it should be obvious they are probably metagaming to some extent by urging people to come on just to vote. Do the DM's have ways of checking out who voted and seeing how active they are?

[The GrumpyCat]

The only mechanic change I -would- be for is maybe that you lose your citizen ship if you are not active enough? My thinking on this is to prevent situations where characters that are alts or sparsely active log on to vote and the candidates never have a chance to win that person's vote because their character isn't active enough to influence or be engaged.

I agreed with this at first but after thinking about it, players could just buy citizenship back for 10,000 gold and vote anyways. You'd have to ban them from buying citizenship for at least a couple of months if it gets revoked. And even then if an election goes up and the current leader asks them OOC to get on and vote it might have been over two months since they lost their citizenship for being inactive so they can still just buy it back anyways. Honestly if there are only 10-12 really active players in a settlement and somebody gets 50+ votes from a bunch of people that haven't logged in for a year it should be obvious they are probably metagaming to some extent by urging people to come on just to vote. Do the DM's have ways of checking out who voted and seeing how active they are?

We have ways yes.
Hrm... quoting from the Wiki...

Becoming a Citizen

Speak to registrar NPC. Pay 10k, you're now a citizen of the town.
Taking citizenship at a town removes any citizenship of other towns. If you had prior citizenship elsewhere, you cannot run or vote for a year in the new town.
Citizenship will expire if you do not log in for 13 game months. (approximately 37 RL days)

I'm not entirely sure though if that's 'player log in' or 'Character log in.' I would think it'd be fairer if it was the latter.

If we went the suggestion rout, I'd say maybe make that period shorter (e.g. 6 IG months) and make it so that the rules were the same as if if you had prior citizenship. Which is to say, if you don't log in as that character for say, two/three weeks, you loose citizenship, and whilst you can retake it any time you want, you cannot stand/vote in a settlment for a IG year.
That seems... close to what is being suggested? Am I right?