Conflict and the surface.

An area to facilitate free-form feedback on systems (in-game or out) related to Arelith.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Active DMs, Contributors

User avatar
Party in the forest at midnight
Posts: 1384
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 4:55 pm

Re: Conflict and the surface.

Post by Party in the forest at midnight » Sun Nov 29, 2020 6:11 pm

I tried to avoid talking about social RP, because it's not my place to say what other players should be RPing. But I think it does have a major impact on settlement RP, where the end goal of a settlement is to keep things stable. But likewise, I think it'd be really rude to shake every settlement up and rip the rug out from under people. It will just breed ill will and anger. And probably cause some OOC conspiracy to keep things stable, because there'll still be mechanical things that players can abuse for their own benefit.

I've become jaded at the system, that voting makes it into a popularity contest at best, or a clique strangle holding something at worst. And regardless of who is in power, the problem still remains that people can get exiled and pariah'd, which means they'll end up in the same problem we're at now where there's not enough spaces for people who are unwelcome in settlements.

I don't like the pariah mechanic, it gives settlements too much power to take housing and shops away from people since it doesn't cost resources. The exile mechanic is bad, I don't like that it makes a mechanical barrier preventing you entry. But pariah being unlimited and free has added a new uneasy layer to the dynamic. Where if you're a petty criminal, you can lose everything in town. Where if you do anything at all people don't like, you lose everything. Where if you worship a god people don't like, you're now pariah. I think the system should be removed. I think exile should be removed too. Sibayad does pretty well without it. I was told the mechanic exists to deal with griefers, IMO the DM team should be the ones dealing with those.

I've not actually been made pariah anywhere, but the threat of it being a possibility if I ever do anything to shake things means that I plan all of my characters around the expectation that they will lose settlement access. And I think the looming threat hits a lot of people. And people who are caught doing petty crime or who worship Bane certainly are made pariah. Why wouldn't they be? There's no drawback to doing it, it doesn't cost any resources. This post in this thread spells it out:
viewtopic.php?f=37&t=31509&start=25#p248044
Get caught, get out. Which is the very problem I'm trying to describe. It absolutely butchers conflict once people have nowhere left they can RP. Exiling/pariah shuts down conflict.


In contrast, what I've seen in Sibayad is fairly successful. People can come in and RP and form groups there, and once they stop being active, they don't really hold anything hostage. Some people try to claim the city with fixtures, but as soon as they stop being active, the fixtures are trashed, and the town goes back to normal until the next group moves in. I would like to see some larger scale non-controllable cities, where players have zero say in the government itself. New cities don't need to be entirely new, just expansions on existing places.

People are saying that they think no mechanics can fix the current problem. I would agree, in that I think making -fewer- mechanics will fix it, because players will have breathing room without having to worry. Aniel's post even said, when you get booted out of a settlement, off to Sibayad you go.
I think all of the story and conflict that comes out of Sibayad is proof that this sort of thing works. And it works because players in Sibayad can't just exile other players and stop a conflict before it starts.


Otherwise, I think Torugor's post really highlights the thing Grumpycat was saying about how there's no distinction to being an actual child-eating cultist, and a sketchy person who hangs out with sketchy people.

My best example of why this is a problem is also my best example of pre-download behaviour I've seen from people. Because it's coming from "my side" of this argument.
I understand why Jacob Swift is hated by people, that the Arcane Tower was held in the Conclave's clutches for ages, that it was stagnant, etc. But then it was opened up. There is zero reason for any of these grudges to persist. And yet I see people still making characters who magically learn about Jacob Swift the Palemaster, and go on a crusade against him. Jacob is barely active. There are actual dangerous necromancers in the world, and yet for some reason the one who isn't doing anything at all, is the one everyone focuses on.
Worst was this happened again after the Twisted Rune plot. There was a very active Velsharoon cult that Garrett made all kinds of notes on so people could go after them. What did people do? Go after Jacob instead. What the heck! He had nothing to do with this! Personally I think it's just bullying, because people don't like him. And everyone justifies it because "Well, he's an old character, he's been doing the same thing for years on end, he's a palemaster," and it's just hollow excuses.

And it brings me to another question- If a palemaster who teaches against animation and advocates for responsible use of necromancy has people trying to bully him off the surface, what does that mean for actual evil characters doing evil things who want to try and RP on the surface? Or are you just trying to bully him into deleting the character? I don't like it either way. I think Jacob should have every right to continue RPing and doing mage RP on the surface, just like I think necromancers should be able to set up a necromancy guild somewhere and be surface exclusive, not feeling forced to join the Arcanum.

Which ties into the whole notion of tolerance RP. Usually it comes up in terms of "good" characters peer pressuring people into accepting drow, kobolds, or tieflings without question.
But a side effect of outed evil characters being cast out of society is they end up having to become more tolerant to monsters if they want to continue existing as a character, because chances are they're going to end up dealing with Andunor at some point. Which ends up causing problems for evil groups that are intolerant of monsters, the amount of people they can RP with ends up being cut even more.


Some quotes I liked that I wanted to reply to:
Seven Sons of Sin wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 5:06 am
The most resistance (yet again) I've ever played from a good character is from other good characters.
This was my experience on Garrett as well, and is why I think there really ought to be a non-settlement city for good characters. Similarly...
DM Rex wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 12:34 am
Racist is by the by not a term permitted on Arelith. As in, racism can and does exist in this fictional fantasy world. And whether people openly do so or not, they all have some predispositions on various races big and small.

There is also the matter of the monster race policy, as Arelith does not support drow walking openly in daylight, or comfortably on the surface for extended periods of time. There are a few races that can walk between the top and bottom, but besides those few the expectation is that those who shouldn't be comfortable moving in the open, or accepted by every society should be lurking in their respective territories. Individuals that violate these expectations are to be reported.
This has become an increasing issue lately. I report it when I see it, but I've been hearing other players say they've seen a giant upswing in it. I'm yelling at them, keep reporting, but some of them are starting to tell me they're feeling burnt out from reporting all the time.


Flower Power wrote:
Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:34 pm
And at that point, you may as well just be playing in Andunor, which is why most evil PCs have ended up down there. The surface needs more spaces where people can be bad people, without having to end up directly working alongside Literal Actual Monsters. Andunor was great for RP in the Underdark - but I think it's probably one of the worst things that ever happened to evil RP on the Surface.
That's what it feels like at times. It was a bit depressing when I had a lot of positive feedback from people who were interested in joining my guild. Only to learn all of them played Underdark and were outcasts, so couldn't join.



Seven Sons of Sin wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 5:06 am
Another of SsoS's crazy hottakes - The whole bloody castle system incentivizes nothing more than rewarding the hording of wealth, the institutionalization of factions/cliques, and deleterious non-confrontational settlement behaviour.

How do you get a castle?

You bid on it.

You don't conquer it. You don't vote on it. None of the mechanics are reflective of any kind of positive roleplaying. You literally just throw money. Sure, there's some level of subterfuge around the auction, but really, it's just about gold.
This is good and worthy of its own thread.



Archon wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 10:53 am
I have reached a point as a player, where I don't know how to contribute positively to the server. As in, there's a constant feeling that established structures will be impossible to shake, and craft anything ''new'', in a way that it creates a wider story and shifts the grid.
I've had that feeling too. I don't think it's even possible for anyone to do 40 RPR quality RP anymore. There is nothing that can be moved and shaken.

Red_Wharf
Posts: 192
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 5:26 am

Re: Conflict and the surface.

Post by Red_Wharf » Sun Nov 29, 2020 6:16 pm

torugor wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 5:45 pm
stuff
Death has the meaning and the value you decide to give to it, be it psychological or physical, it's a traumatizing experience. But if you think it doesn't have any, a DM might end up giving your character a MoD some day, to make sure they end up in their deity's realm instead of just another trip through the Fugue.

Also, a solution that encourages people to form gank squads in order to kill their enemies and targets until their inventory is completely dry of items sounds very toxic to me. Besides, Disarm was nerfed, characters don't drop their weapons on the ground anymore, so I don't think the team is too interested in this approach anyway.

User avatar
WanderingPoet
Posts: 759
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 5:51 am

Re: Conflict and the surface.

Post by WanderingPoet » Sun Nov 29, 2020 6:21 pm

Flower Power wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 8:47 am
WanderingPoet wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 4:53 am
That said, the Surface is a bit hard to shake due to the settlement alliances. Why are there settlement alliances? Because the underdark comes up every night, because when you have a rampaging drove of 5-10 underdarkers running around when your people are IRL asleep, you need the backup of other settlements with different playerbases.
The idea that the Axehold Accord's founding is a response to UD pressures and raids is one that's often forwarded as an explanation for why it came about, but one that doesn't actually jive with the history of the Accords if you actually know it and look at it (and the lead up to their signing) objectively; the time that they came into being was actually marked by some of the LEAST intensive UD raiding in recent years. The Accords weren't really about mutual defense, but about hegemony and institution building, which have turned into some of the negative stumbling blocks to dynamism that we've been discussing here - everything else came afterwards as window dressing to make their continued existence more palatable.

It's kind of awkward to dance around this point because I already feel like I'm delving into FOIG territory, but it's also kind of impossible to actually have this discussion without pointing it out, too.
That's an interesting theory; although I was talking about alliances in general (there is almost always an alliance, or even more than one alliance since I started playing 9 years ago). At the time of the Axehold Accords, there was a reduction in Underdarker threat; that's true. At the time there was an perceived alliance between Cordor, Myon and the Banites (who were commonly able to win a 1vs10 PVP fight). NOTE to reader: This is an IC observation, without attempt to declare what happened OOC. Actual events should be FOIG.

So rather than the Axehold Accords being about hegemony and institution building, it was more built to combat such; to combat the longstanding hegemony of Myon (which had just regained power), and to prevent an alliance between enemies from crushing any one settlement.

Funny enough, that proves my point; that with a reduction in Underdarker threat there was conflict between surfacers!

---------------------
What is clear from a lot of these posts is two things:
1) That people don't actually know what social RP is and will never stop blaming their woes on the nebulous concept.
Flower Power wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 5:20 pm
I did a lot of plotting, backroom deals and negotiation as Ed. A lot of it. None of that can be deemed as "social RP" despite not having any PvP involved in it at all, because it revolved around creating some sort of conflict or narrative that people would have to grapple with - perhaps being taken out of their comfort zone or forced to create alliances of opportunity with people they probably really shouldn't have in retrospect.
This is a perfect example of social RP! I have seen people try to claim that a war memorial is not social RP, but a party to celebrate the success of the war is; that they know social RP when they see it. In other words, any RP they find boring is 'social rp'. Yet; without the social RP all you have is high amounts of PVP; which is generally what makes the underdark boring for many people (unless you know who to play with; the people doing social RP). If you want to be unhappy with a particular RP style; at least choose something less broad than 'social' (which is the glue that brings people together); and go with 'second life rp' or 'house rp'; if you want to put blame on something.

2) People are unwilling to accept the consequences for their characters actions. This comes in by making people both risk adverse (which is often sensible IC, even if it's good to OOC shake things); as well as making people upset when they rock the boat and someone ICly is unhappy with them for doing so. This often leads to people with powerbuilds roaming around and defeating people that disagree with them in roaming PVP ganksquads; which causes those with weaker builds to have less interest in conflict with them and seek allies. You shouldn't need a powerbuild to shake the boat, yet if you look at some of the recent movers/shakers/conflict makers you'll see that the majority are level 30 powerbuilds and as soon as a character takes issue with an action they get smooshed.

Arelith could do well to heavily tone back the power of characters, to force more alliances by the movers and shakers rather than small powerbuilt killsquads that force groups to stick together just to survive.
Last edited by WanderingPoet on Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Path_of_Play wrote:Fear, intimidation, anger - All these, the tyrant's tools.
Laughter, encouragement, play - not simply just for fools.
These tools reveal,
More is learned,
From another in an hour of play,
Than in a year of contention.

torugor
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2020 2:45 pm

Re: Conflict and the surface.

Post by torugor » Sun Nov 29, 2020 6:31 pm

I dont think the issue is the social roleplayers. The only reason we are pointing the social roleplayers is because they currently control the huge settlements and force their rules to those that are not in control


AND THAT IS FINE!!!!

Problem is that there is other people who also want to place their mark in the world. And that creates the conflict. If the game dont give other factions means mechanical or rpwise to change the status quo the game gets static. And gets unfair.

I will quote little finger here: chaos is not a pit its a ladder. The game is made in a way there is no chaos so people feel they cant go further. They get to lvl 30 and the final goal is achieved. And game gives no other goal cause rules are to protect those who came first.

Those who came first has all good houses that cant be taken by force. Those who came first have a stach of resources that cant be stolen. Those who came first control politics of great cities.

They dont have to do anything to protect what they have and the newcomers cant do anything meaningful to take what they have either. If you try to create conflict you are pariah cant speak cant defend yourself. If you form groups to raid it has no great effect in the world cause in the end...its only ellection that changes settlements.

Why settlements use resources in defense anyway? I see no gamemech reason for that. Its not like cordor could be occupied by foreign forces.

Ellections is great to keep settlements under rule on peace. But there should also exist ways for the people inside settlements to loose it all if the settlement is taken.

I dont think people in settlements are wrong keeping evil people out. But i think there should be clear ways for evil people to make cues...make war and to take control of places by force. So that even the social players have to work to keep their stuff protected. And not only protected by the game mechanics of keeping people out.

I just discovered the magic barrier of being exiled from a city. I think that is a repulsive piece of mechanics. It breaks rp. Its not even explanatory. Would rather be chased by invencible guards intown and killed than seeing that happen.

torugor
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2020 2:45 pm

Re: Conflict and the surface.

Post by torugor » Sun Nov 29, 2020 6:53 pm

The day a dm give me a MoD for rping something that is real both in the lore and in the mechanics of the game is the day you wont even see me in this forums or in the game again

The mechanics take away all fear of death. And you think the the best way to solve it is punishing whoever rps it the way it is. I am just telling the truth so that it can be made better. Even gave examples of systems i know worked. You dont like the truth change it not try to force an exception on me.

My character is far from a powerbuild. And i dont own a house to keep my stuff. So yeah were this system implemented i would probably loose stuff and die a lot. And you see me advocating to have it cause i have seen this work and its great.

People end up feeling their character is more alive and their lives have huge meaning just because there is something to loose in each fight.


Red_Wharf wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 6:16 pm
torugor wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 5:45 pm
stuff
Death has the meaning and the value you decide to give to it, be it psychological or physical, it's a traumatizing experience. But if you think it doesn't have any, a DM might end up giving your character a MoD some day, to make sure they end up in their deity's realm instead of just another trip through the Fugue.

Also, a solution that encourages people to form gank squads in order to kill their enemies and targets until their inventory is completely dry of items sounds very toxic to me. Besides, Disarm was nerfed, characters don't drop their weapons on the ground anymore, so I don't think the team is too interested in this approach anyway.

Gouge Away
Posts: 425
Joined: Fri May 24, 2019 4:38 am

Re: Conflict and the surface.

Post by Gouge Away » Sun Nov 29, 2020 7:47 pm

Settlements on Arelith can feel more like gated communities with homeowner associations than real, diverse cities. One question to ask is why in RL our modern and historical cities have areas where criminal activity (organized or otherwise) is rampant and even tolerated, or how and why strongmen are able to take command of countries, regions and factions and thrive. For one thing the seedy element will do work no one else wants to (which is why that's often around the docks, lots of shadiness involved in the shipping trade.) Cordor may ostensibly have slums but it’s very clean and known criminals are quickly ostracized even if their crimes are petty. A Medieval-ish city would usually take more of an attitude of “whatever they’re doing in their district is their problem, as long as they keep it there.” Which could include building criminal networks that become powerful in their own right. Why can’t our characters do the same? The answer is probably because there’s nobody stopping level 30 do-gooders from cleaning house and they think eradicating any trace of budding evil is their job so...

Thinking about it, I really miss the freedom to play a shady lower-class character who is just ignored as the lower class ought to be. If you play a peasant or working class thug you're assumed to be suspicious and evil and get more attention, weirdly. Why is that?

But… we might also just be asking for too much here. I don’t think players are going to change, maybe some will but this is something that would require a unified front and that's never going to happen. So there’s not really any way you’re going to see things change without a radical redesign of the module. While I’d love to see the surface settlements turn about 50% seedier I don’t think the community can support that, not without a lot of DM and developer intervention. I’m pretty much resigned at this point to work with what’s there instead of wishing things were different… There’s still plenty of potential with the Arelith we have, and a lot of that comes from stepping away from the good vs evil thing entirely and focusing on entirely different career goals for my characters.

Chosen Son
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2019 2:33 am

Re: Conflict and the surface.

Post by Chosen Son » Sun Nov 29, 2020 8:44 pm

Conflict is desirable in my mind, and there should be more of it on the surface. It will arise naturally if incentivized, and given room to grow naturally, like adding more sibuyad like areas for surface evil to operate from.

User avatar
Zavandar
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 2:12 am

Re: Conflict and the surface.

Post by Zavandar » Sun Nov 29, 2020 9:02 pm

WanderingPoet wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 6:21 pm
At the time of the Axehold Accords, there was a reduction in Underdarker threat; that's true. At the time there was an alliance between Cordor, Myon and the Banites (who were commonly able to win a 1vs10 PVP fight).
so as someone that i think is pretty qualified to speak on this..

first, i'm glad that it was finally acknowledged that the accords were ACTUALLY made for. second, i think the accords's creation is actually testament to the problems highlighted in this thread: banites weren't rofl-stomped immediately by cordor and myon and the two cities were vilified for it.

moreover, there was no proper alliance between the three; at least, not with the banites. also? ironically? the underdark incursions slowed BECAUSE of cordor/myon/banites.
Intelligence is too important

three wolf moon
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2018 12:59 am

Re: Conflict and the surface.

Post by three wolf moon » Sun Nov 29, 2020 9:07 pm

I, too, do not appreciate the OOC disinformation being posted. Believing it IC is fine, but posting it as OOC fact is tantamount to indoctrination.

Myon and Cordor were briefly allied, neither Myon nor Cordor had ever entered into an alliance with the Banites. On a few occasions we had collaborated to kill underdarkers and other villains that showed up in the Forest/Minmir Nexus and Lake regions or generally on the surface. It never went beyond that.

User avatar
Good heavens Miss Sakamoto
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:18 am

Re: Conflict and the surface.

Post by Good heavens Miss Sakamoto » Sun Nov 29, 2020 9:12 pm

Having played one of the Banites in question, I can attest that there was never an alliance between the Church of Minmir and either Cordor or Myon.

We tried pretty hard to make one float, but for fully IC and understandable reasons, they refused our overtures.

As three wolf moon has said, the furthest it ever went were joint reprisals against underdarkers/house freth (and the house freth reprisal had representatives from Guldorand, so I guess confirmed 6 way Banite alliance, by Yeto-logic).

Some further elaboration: At the time, Guld/Brog did very nearly go to war with Myon, but it was because certain belligerent individuals, many of whom ended up taking an extended break from the server towards the end of the affair, kept attacking Myon's folks. The Banegang tried to spin this into a "an enemy of an enemy is a friend" narrative, but Myon wasn't having it, so we were left w/o allies.

The war with Cordor nearly happened because Brog attacked a joint anti-underdarker patrol to try killing the Banites in it, and killed a bunch of people from Cordor/Myon in the crossfire (with zero Banites dead).

Anyhow, checking back out. I'd have left the topic alone, but OOC inaccuracies posted as truth smack too much of historical revisionism. I think the server being a 4 settlement mega alliance is stale, boring, and not very creative, but I'm not here to convince you all of that, only to fix wrong things said on the internet.

CNS
Posts: 260
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:29 pm

Re: Conflict and the surface.

Post by CNS » Sun Nov 29, 2020 9:26 pm

Each settlement can exist perfectly well without any need of anything from any other settlement.

There exists no reward, only hassle and trouble for rocking the boat and going against others.

There is no competition for gold, resources or wealth.

No rewards for power, or indeed any power to be gained.

No benefit for the trouble, no loss if I just stay in my happy bubble. I miss out on nothing.

Why is anyone surprised there is no conflict?

User avatar
WanderingPoet
Posts: 759
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 5:51 am

Re: Conflict and the surface.

Post by WanderingPoet » Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:01 am

Hm, well I apologize that you think it's OOC misinformation, and rereading what I said I can understand why you feel that way.

However, it isn't; I'm not saying OOCly what happened with Cordor/Myon/Banites; I'm saying what happened IC for the Axehold Accords; from what I could see as being part of those settlements at the time. As a reminder, people can have wrong information IC and still make decisions on it; without it being an OOC truth. That's part of the fun of it being IC! Keep it IC folks, you don't need to jump down people's throat over it.
Some further elaboration: At the time, Guld/Brog did very nearly go to war with Myon, but it was because certain belligerent individuals, many of whom ended up taking an extended break from the server towards the end of the affair, kept attacking Myon's folks. The Banegang tried to spin this into a "an enemy of an enemy is a friend" narrative, but Myon wasn't having it, so we were left w/o allies.

The war with Cordor nearly happened because Brog attacked a joint anti-underdarker patrol to try killing the Banites in it, and killed a bunch of people from Cordor/Myon in the crossfire (with zero Banites dead).
...Also Brog and Guld did go to war with Myon and Cordor as an alliance? There was a declaration of war by Cordor/Myon on it and everything. It was a rather short war, however.

----------------
None of that changes the fact however, that with a reduced Underdark presence, there was conflict on the surface.
Path_of_Play wrote:Fear, intimidation, anger - All these, the tyrant's tools.
Laughter, encouragement, play - not simply just for fools.
These tools reveal,
More is learned,
From another in an hour of play,
Than in a year of contention.

User avatar
Zavandar
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 2:12 am

Re: Conflict and the surface.

Post by Zavandar » Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:24 am

nobody is roleplaying in this thread

i think it's assumed that the opinions you're sharing here are your own and not your character's. nothing you said has implied otherwise. you have presented things as facts.
Intelligence is too important

User avatar
this is not for you
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:13 am

Re: Conflict and the surface.

Post by this is not for you » Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:45 am

WanderingPoet wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:01 am
Hm, well I apologize that you think it's OOC misinformation, and rereading what I said I can understand why you feel that way.

However, it isn't; I'm not saying OOCly what happened with Cordor/Myon/Banites; I'm saying what happened IC for the Axehold Accords; from what I could see as being part of those settlements at the time. As a reminder, people can have wrong information IC and still make decisions on it; without it being an OOC truth. That's part of the fun of it being IC! Keep it IC folks, you don't need to jump down people's throat over it.
I don't even play here anymore, but I was so offended by this sentence I have underlined here, I had to find my password, log on, just to give you a piece of my mind.

Using your characters (incorrect) IC interpretation of the dynamic to justify the OOC policy changes you want in an OOC forum is a clear presentation of your bias. We are not in IC territory right now, there is no reason for you to be expressing your PCs (incorrect) interpretation of events. You should be citing the real dynamic of events that happened, or, at the very least, prefacing your opinion that it is the interpretation of your character. The opinion that you're lifting here is clearly not in concern for the server at large, but for your personal experiences and how you feel about things.

And yes, I am going to jump down your throat about it you artless dewberry, because it is grossly disrespectful to the other people involved in this argument when you invalidate their roleplay and what they were doing because your PC didn't believe them.

.


User avatar
WanderingPoet
Posts: 759
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2017 5:51 am

Re: Conflict and the surface.

Post by WanderingPoet » Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:53 am

this is not for you wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:45 am
WanderingPoet wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:01 am
Hm, well I apologize that you think it's OOC misinformation, and rereading what I said I can understand why you feel that way.

However, it isn't; I'm not saying OOCly what happened with Cordor/Myon/Banites; I'm saying what happened IC for the Axehold Accords; from what I could see as being part of those settlements at the time. As a reminder, people can have wrong information IC and still make decisions on it; without it being an OOC truth. That's part of the fun of it being IC! Keep it IC folks, you don't need to jump down people's throat over it.
I don't even play here anymore, but I was so offended by this sentence I have underlined here, I had to find my password, log on, just to give you a piece of my mind.

Using your characters (incorrect) IC interpretation of the dynamic to justify the OOC policy changes you want in an OOC forum is a clear presentation of your bias. We are not in IC territory right now, there is no reason for you to be expressing your PCs (incorrect) interpretation of events. You should be citing the real dynamic of events that happened, or, at the very least, prefacing your opinion that it is the interpretation of your character. The opinion that you're lifting here is clearly not in concern for the server at large, but for your personal experiences and how you feel about things.

And yes, I am going to jump down your throat about it you artless dewberry, because it is grossly disrespectful to the other people involved in this argument when you invalidate their roleplay and what they were doing because your PC didn't believe them.
No, not at all. We're talking about why an act occurred in character, so it makes sense to talk about why something happened. In fact it's grossly disrespectful for all the assumptions that it was does for OOC reasons, which is what has been displayed. To justify OOC policy changes based off imagined OOC slights is by far the worse reason to change policy; you have to look at why things happened for IC reasons if you want to change how the server works. To jump to the conclusion that everyone is out to get you OOC is just a disservice to the entire playbase. Show some respect for your fellow players already. Honestly it's that kind of raw disrespect towards each other which is why many people don't bother with the forums; it's impossible to have a civil conversation without people assuming the worst of each other.

You can make assumptions about the reasoning all you want, but the fact is I enjoyed that plotline and seeing the conflict and advocating for more of it. I'm not slandering or being disrespectful to those involved.

However, to ensure future readers don't misinterpret what I said; I'll make it clear in my original post.
Last edited by WanderingPoet on Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:58 am, edited 2 times in total.
Path_of_Play wrote:Fear, intimidation, anger - All these, the tyrant's tools.
Laughter, encouragement, play - not simply just for fools.
These tools reveal,
More is learned,
From another in an hour of play,
Than in a year of contention.

User avatar
this is not for you
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:13 am

Re: Conflict and the surface.

Post by this is not for you » Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:58 am

WanderingPoet wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 1:53 am
...
Hey man, you don't need to project on me. I never said anything about anyone going after anybody else OOC.

Less Snarky Addendum.

You can paint it however you like, but you are clearly positioning your IC character's interpretation of events as OOC justification for a shift. That is not you representing a concern for the server, that is you representing your own personal concerns and how it would benefit you. You have zero respect from me when you admittedly posit lies as factual truth. To me, that makes you a completely unreliable narrator of events. And that is the kindest interpretation of it.

.


User avatar
Ork
Arelith Gold Supporter
Arelith Gold Supporter
Posts: 2488
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 8:30 pm

Re: Conflict and the surface.

Post by Ork » Mon Nov 30, 2020 2:09 am

This went well.

Our server has always heavily favored the adventurer, the do-er, the active agent. We ought reward these types of players with far more than RPR. Server resources should be devoted to the movers & shakers. Second Lifers can play here, but they shouldn't get access to resources like guild halls, castles, etc. Those interested in maintaining the status quo should never receive it.

User avatar
Party in the forest at midnight
Posts: 1384
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 4:55 pm

Re: Conflict and the surface.

Post by Party in the forest at midnight » Mon Nov 30, 2020 2:14 am

Please don't get my thread locked, guys. There's a lot of people chiming in and I'm hoping that at least getting the conversation started will be a step into trying to improve things.

User avatar
this is not for you
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:13 am

Re: Conflict and the surface.

Post by this is not for you » Mon Nov 30, 2020 3:09 am

I apologize to Party for derailing their thread. I close my case with something contributive.

I feel like this server has a really hard time balancing escalation. It feels like when there's disagreements back and forth, the ultimate finish is to PvP them over and over while saying a bunch of mean stuff about them on the boards and complaining about your lack of conclusion to the RP to your buds. (I'm guilty of this.) Or exile them from everything everywhere and shut them out of areas of RP, essentially telling them "sorry, you can't play with us."
When Banites existed, they could not breathe in someone's direction without swords being pulled out.
In Party's earlier example, Jacob Swift is pariahed by most before he's even met them.
Pirates for a long time (and maybe now? idk haha I don't play here anymore) couldn't step foot anywhere in any settlement, or even the Tower without getting dumpstered.
Let's not forget Warlocks, or any other unique flavor villain that might show up that challenges the status quo.
So, my take on it,
We really skip over the build up, the meaningful back and forth, because we're really interested in getting to the stabby parts, or getting them out of our hair before they disrupt things too much, or virtue signalling our pc's alignment/opinions on things. Which is kind of problematic, because there is no mechanical way to close conflict with death being as it is on this server. To which I say is not the problem that needs to be solved. The problem is that in classic arelith RP, we tend to seek our solution, instead of the process of how we're going to get there.
Playing on other servers has made me really appreciate slow paced RP that focuses more on the meaningful scenes that are tense, scary, exciting, funny, than it does on getting to the end and being the 'winner'. Having a skull in my bag is less cool than the time my paladin had to ask a Banite to make her a shield because she had no friends to do it for her. I would rather see Katernin Bersk installed as the permanent chancellor of Cordor and RP being a cool resistance guy or a mean officer of the state than wait for the obvious sharran chancellor whose been playing it safe for 4 months to do something interesting.
I understand that there's a concern to make sure we're upholding the setting, but with Arelith being Big Homebrew Energy, newer characters never being 100% on what timeline we're in, what system we're using, what's allowed, what's dismissed, I don't know if there's really a setting integrity PCs need to enforce by being so hardline against one another. Obviously we don't need to be seeing Tormish and Banites holding hands, but we don't need to see them immediately going for the throat when there are endless creative means to have a cool tense scene. I don't know if there is an easy solution to this, but I think Ork has the best idea.
tl;dr
it'd be cool if people tried to pretend they were playing with other players and not npcs
also it'd be cool if people were open to having their pc's opinions challenged in a way that provokes thought


I thought about it and I didnt like what I said but I left it here anyway and will close with a different thought.

There's a lot of people who come here to social RP. Fine. I get it. We're in a global pandemic. I haven't interacted with a real human for 2 weeks. It's nice to plug in somewhere and get a bit of interaction and relax.

But these people should not be the people leading settlements, or controlling the narrative at large. People who want to avoid conflict should be taking the responsibility to avoid being in that conflict. Arelith is an action fantasy RP server. It's not a social server. You can come here and have your tea and your twins, but you need to let the people who want to use the sand box use it.

And the "movers and shakers" imo, need to be mindful of the people who are trying to just do their house/mercantile rp and not drag people who are totally uninterested into conflict because, aside from it being inconsiderate, they're probably not going to be fun to RP with, because they don't want to have this kind of RP with you.
Last edited by this is not for you on Mon Nov 30, 2020 3:37 am, edited 2 times in total.

.


User avatar
Marsi
Posts: 549
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:34 am

Re: Conflict and the surface.

Post by Marsi » Mon Nov 30, 2020 3:13 am

WanderingPoet wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 6:21 pm
What is clear from a lot of these posts is two things:
1) That people don't actually know what social RP is and will never stop blaming their woes on the nebulous concept.
Flower Power wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 5:20 pm
I did a lot of plotting, backroom deals and negotiation as Ed. A lot of it. None of that can be deemed as "social RP" despite not having any PvP involved in it at all, because it revolved around creating some sort of conflict or narrative that people would have to grapple with - perhaps being taken out of their comfort zone or forced to create alliances of opportunity with people they probably really shouldn't have in retrospect.
This is a perfect example of social RP! I have seen people try to claim that a war memorial is not social RP, but a party to celebrate the success of the war is; that they know social RP when they see it. In other words, any RP they find boring is 'social rp'. Yet; without the social RP all you have is high amounts of PVP; which is generally what makes the underdark boring for many people (unless you know who to play with; the people doing social RP). If you want to be unhappy with a particular RP style; at least choose something less broad than 'social' (which is the glue that brings people together); and go with 'second life rp' or 'house rp'; if you want to put blame on something.
Social RP has had a widely understood and largely unchanged meaning for at least as long as I've been on the server - circa 2011.

Anyway, we're not here to debate semantics. There's a widely shared feeling of cultural malaise. There's no denying that a large amount of people feel this way. It's not that we all want to police social RP. It's that social roleplayers are setting the agenda for the surface and making roleplay narratives that are inconvenient to their desired play-style impossible.

So no, I don't have a problem with a war memorial or an armistice party. I'd never suggest that if you want to have a party in-game that you're a problem - you become a problem when your priority is to have parties, weddings and other social activities, and you come to feel entitled to the kind of stability and lack of trouble that enables such an itinerary.
2) People are unwilling to accept the consequences for their characters actions. This comes in by making people both risk adverse (which is often sensible IC, even if it's good to OOC shake things); as well as making people upset when they rock the boat and someone ICly is unhappy with them for doing so. This often leads to people with powerbuilds roaming around and defeating people that disagree with them in roaming PVP ganksquads; which causes those with weaker builds to have less interest in conflict with them and seek allies. You shouldn't need a powerbuild to shake the boat, yet if you look at some of the recent movers/shakers/conflict makers you'll see that the majority are level 30 powerbuilds and as soon as a character takes issue with an action they get smooshed.

Arelith could do well to heavily tone back the power of characters, to force more alliances by the movers and shakers rather than small powerbuilt killsquads that force groups to stick together just to survive.
I think "unwilling to accept consequences" is putting it mildly. I think there is a network of players who not only refuse to accept consequences, but refuse to accept any kind of shared reality that involves them losing. They will simply create a new world where it didn't happen, where their opponents Never Existed.

I don't agree that PvP ganksquads have been a feature in Arelith for at least, what, six-seven years?, but I don't find it hard to imagine why someone might resort to salt-the-earth tactics when their opponents simply refuse to engage with them or compromise the shared narrative in the face of strategic, electoral, cultural or social failure.

Why should the great bell of Beaulieu toll when the shadows were neither short nor long?


User avatar
Ferret Roll
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 10:46 pm

Re: Conflict and the surface.

Post by Ferret Roll » Mon Nov 30, 2020 3:28 am

Marsi wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 3:13 am
I think "unwilling to accept consequences" is putting it mildly. I think there is a network of players who not only refuse to accept consequences, but refuse to accept any kind of shared reality that involves them losing. They will simply create a new world where it didn't happen, where their opponents Never Existed.
I have noticed a great deal of this. A lot of characters I've encountered have been quick to deny and rewrite history that didn't involve them, but did involve the player's past characters or characters of their OOC friends.

Typically these rewrites have been to erase any form of wrongdoing, to cast blame for wrongdoing onto others (as grounds to then block out those the blame was shifted to), and to dodge consequences while creating a false narrative spread through OOC channels as if it were truth.

I consider this to be the most toxic form of player, worse even than the stereotypical PvP griefer. There's not a lot of room to oppose this or even build a narrative with it, because the characters will ignore any reality that isn't one of their own creation.

AstralUniverse
Posts: 2724
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:54 pm

Re: Conflict and the surface.

Post by AstralUniverse » Mon Nov 30, 2020 4:22 am

Zavandar wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 9:02 pm
WanderingPoet wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 6:21 pm
At the time of the Axehold Accords, there was a reduction in Underdarker threat; that's true. At the time there was an alliance between Cordor, Myon and the Banites (who were commonly able to win a 1vs10 PVP fight).
so as someone that i think is pretty qualified to speak on this..

first, i'm glad that it was finally acknowledged that the accords were ACTUALLY made for. second, i think the accords's creation is actually testament to the problems highlighted in this thread: banites weren't rofl-stomped immediately by cordor and myon and the two cities were vilified for it.

moreover, there was no proper alliance between the three; at least, not with the banites. also? ironically? the underdark incursions slowed BECAUSE of cordor/myon/banites.
The narrative back in the day was something like "we must ally because Cordor and Myon were corrupted by the church of Bane and they are really strong and scary and we gotta do something about it". The times of that particular war, was to me, the last time I've ever had fun on this server because everyone were striding in gray areas. There was no right or wrong, just a bunch of extremists. I loved it and I miss that plot. It was more inclusive than any large server-scale DM event and I felt like it's the last time anything was 'moved and shaken' on the surface.
Svrtr wrote:

I've spoken with Kenji and warpriest will be allowed to take elemental avatar so keep this in mind too


Lawful
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:17 pm

Re: Conflict and the surface.

Post by Lawful » Mon Nov 30, 2020 4:38 am

torugor wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 2:44 pm
stuff
[/quote]


I just wanted to put my own two cents in on your perspective that Guldorand and Cordor are only accessible to good aligned people. My character is a open Banite in Guldorand, and that has caused quite a stir in his time, but it has not stopped him from achieving things within the settlement. He is by no means a good person, just extremely dutiful. Good and Evil to me is just acting on more skewed moral judgements, or not, and then what you are on the Law and Chaos scale dictates what those actions would be.

So really it is about your characters interactions, and associations with other characters that really make a impact rather than if you are good or evil in a alignment chart, from what I have seen. Given your examples, you say your brother is a Necromancer, so in turn that will put a bad light on you regardless just by association as most surface places are opposed to the practice.

The issue I see is the way surface settlements enforce a culture as a whole island, rather than separate entities, something my isolationist character despises, having dirty southerner customs creep up to the mountains! So while alliances are totally natural IC, we seem to focus too much on exactly what is going on in each settlement always, as far as the surface goes. And that does perpetuate the feeling of a ingrained system that could be hard to break, but given recent IC actions, and reactions there is definitely possibilities of drastic change.

And as for RPing your character having no negative effects from dying in battle repeatedly just because he worships Tempus doesn't make sense to me. You have to think of the reality of it, your soul is being torn away, sent to the wall, and then back again. This will take a toll on anyone, regardless of their motivations. You can certainly still RP has the battle ready tempuran, but you would still have to RP the effects of the loss, if you don't already.

Lawful
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:17 pm

Re: Conflict and the surface.

Post by Lawful » Mon Nov 30, 2020 4:45 am

Granted, I will give you that when I started on this server, Banites were reviled all over so my first character could not go anywhere besides the temple of Bane, which was not a safe place for Banites either. But there is history on Arelith that even us new players must adhere to because it shapes characters perceptions along with long lived characters, and books to remind others of the islands history.

I will also put a disclaimer that I have not played UD, and never Cordor extensively, so I can only speak on my experience with Guldorand as far as settlements go.

User avatar
Zavandar
Posts: 785
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 2:12 am

Re: Conflict and the surface.

Post by Zavandar » Mon Nov 30, 2020 5:13 am

AstralUniverse wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 4:22 am
The narrative back in the day was something like "we must ally because Cordor and Myon were corrupted by the church of Bane and they are really strong and scary and we gotta do something about it". The times of that particular war, was to me, the last time I've ever had fun on this server because everyone were striding in gray areas. There was no right or wrong, just a bunch of extremists. I loved it and I miss that plot. It was more inclusive than any large server-scale DM event and I felt like it's the last time anything was 'moved and shaken' on the surface.
i am glad you enjoyed it. i had a lot of fun back then too, but i received a LOT of OOC hate for the decisions i made on rick. whole discords existed (in part) to trash talk me. conspiracies were spun. it was a mess, and all because i played a pragmatic character and had an interest in storytelling beyond bashing banites when they were level 12 (which i could have done).
Intelligence is too important

Locked