Conflict and the surface.

[DangerDolphin]

I do wonder if the RP before PvP rule should apply to encounters instead. Force people to have at least one non-lethal encounter with another character before they jump into killbash-murder-hoboing.

[Red_Wharf]

I am glad to see the server DMs wants for that.

It is not at all what i see ingame though.

My brother necromancer encounters goes like this: "Take off your undeads or we will kill you - buff buff buff buff" then the necro says "stop buffing." and then all attack. Heard he tell me that if he does take off the undeads he is attacked either way...but with less advantage.

As for me. I think i get some of the rp you mentioned. I am not a necro but people tend to go for:
*Distrust *Fear *Insulting *Attempts to Convert *Attempts to redeem *Spying
I get most of the things you expected to go for the worse. Not surprised the necros get the attack on sight treatment.

Yes, that is how unfortunately most encounters go. Here's the issue, though. I know who your brother plays, and twice he attacked a character of mine without any roleplaying whatsoever, so I'd be careful with using him as an example here. This kind of PvP breeds a lot of distrust, and unfortunately encourages people to go up in arms at first sight when they encounter someone who is known to act in bad faith in those situations. For better or worse, ooc character/player reputation is a very real thing, and it can affect how a character is perceived and reacted to. The best we can do is policing ourselves to try making the best out of every hostile encounter, something that both sides can say "well, that was fun" in the end, regardless of the scene's outcome.

[-XXX-]

What We Actually Like To See
*Distrust
*Fear
*Insulting
*Attempts to Convert
*Attempts to redeem
*Attempts to corrupt
*Careful negotiations
*Theological debates.
*Tricking
*Decieving
*Spying
* Even occasionally allying in the face of a Greater Evil.
So on, so forth.

What I personally see most of the time:

*Distrust - yes, all the time. Unhealthy paranoia seems to be much more preferred to being played for fools by the vast majority of the playerbase.
*Fear - does not compute
*Insulting - yes, but only on the IG message boards and never in person.
*Attempts to convert - under the pain of death and permanent banishment
*Attempts to redeem - same as above
*Attempts to corrupt - met with the holy smite 90% of the time. Leading to social suicide of all participants the in the remaining cases.
*Careful negotiations - more like gunboat diplomacy
*Theological debates - see *Insulting for reference
*Tricking - see *Distrust for reference
*Spying - possible, but only for as long as the opposing side is oblivious to it on an OOC level
*Even occassionally allying in the face of greater evil - "there is no greater evil, there is no lesser evil, there is only evil and by all that is holy we shall always smite it"

[AstralUniverse]

I REALLY like this thread. So if we could please avoid examples such as "I happen to know that guy and he actually did XYZ that day" it would be great THANK YOU.

[Ninjimmy]

What We Actually Like To See
*Distrust
*Fear
*Insulting
*Attempts to Convert
*Attempts to redeem
*Attempts to corrupt
*Careful negotiations
*Theological debates.
*Tricking
*Decieving
*Spying
* Even occasionally allying in the face of a Greater Evil.
So on, so forth.

*Attempts to corrupt - met with the holy smite 90% of the time. Leading to social suicide of all participants the in the remaining cases.

This one always struck me as dicey, even though I hear it as Evil Character intentions a lot. Same with slave RP, you kinda need the other person to WANT that to be a story arc so the collaboration side of it needs to be worked out otherwise you get the smite.

It's kinda the same with convert/redeem but those can be faked to keep yourself un-exiled.

There's a case to be made that we're lacking collaboration on who takes an L in a given storyline but this might be one of the problems with conflict on the server - elements beyond PvP/Political Intrigue relies on OOC agreement on where a storyline goes.

[torugor]

To be fair on the subject...you are right.
The behaviour towards my brother is compatible with his fame and his actions. And if you find upir ingame he will tell you his brother is a psycopath and you are right on killing him. But it is the only necro i know of and the one i walk constantly ingame with. So i use him as example because i have no other necro to get examples from.

But the actions on upir are the actions that should be expected to be given to the worse criminals of the game...and this far upir had done no big crimes. And that is what i am talking about. People with gray rp like i do are being treated the same as it was expected for big criminals. Big criminals are treated on the kill on sight policy.

Yes, that is how unfortunately most encounters go. Here's the issue, though. I know who your brother plays, and twice he attacked a character of mine without any roleplaying whatsoever, so I'd be careful with using him as an example here. This kind of PvP breeds a lot of distrust, and unfortunately encourages people to go up in arms at first sight when they encounter someone who is known to act in bad faith in those situations. For better or worse, ooc character/player reputation is a very real thing, and it can affect how a character is perceived and reacted to. The best we can do is policing ourselves to try making the best out of every hostile encounter, something that both sides can say "well, that was fun" in the end, regardless of the scene's outcome.

[AstralUniverse]

Yeah. I played a paladin. And let me tell you that not holy smiting can be a social suicide all the same. I think that's a lot of what this thread is about. The 'balance'.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

I want names of players who send other players toxic messages about in-game storylines, in Discord or otherwise. I am sorry this happened to you Zavandar, et all, it makes me sick.

Irongron's post was great and I am glad he is reading this thread, and some of the concerns.

[Ninjimmy]

I REALLY like this thread. So if we could please avoid examples such as "I happen to know that guy and he actually did XYZ that day" it would be great THANK YOU.

I like this thread too, it's a pretty important issue, but it IS pertinent if we're discussing server culture and using personal examples that the subjective stuff can have additional context added. I mean, if someone misrepresents something or doesn't include context (in a non-malicious, probably just didn't realise it's important, way) then for the sake of an honest debate we do hafta bring in examples.

[Party in the forest at midnight]

I think the culture is in part a result of the mechanics. Arelith has several character options that are unambiguously Capital E Evil, like Warlock, or animation. Things that, even if the individual character is themselves not evil, are known both in and out of character as being Definitely and Always Metaphysically Evil. Warlocks in particular, are constantly framed by the server staff as "Always pacted to an evil being", which immediately creates a framing for how people will react to their characters. It's understandable- the server wants to eliminate people doing what is perceived of as bad or lazy roleplaying, but I think it's a misguided impulse.

While I agree that I think module changes could improve things, with this specific example I think there are things we as players can do to try and improve things.

Something I was trying to popularize on Garrett is warlocks and animating necromancers aren't always capital E evil, it's something I was doing before I shelved him. And came about because I want to help Banite players out a bit, and create a greater dynamic where lesser evils aren't classified as the same as greater evils.

Garrett's had a lot of exposure to the Banites, or even "casual" necromancers, and he's learned that there are people who don't care about anything but their own power. He considers this a "lesser" use of a fell power.

In contrast, Garrett's also had exposure to the Velsharran cult and knows the really wicked experiments they do on people. Things that are substantially worse than animation. He's of the mind that people focus too much on animation- The depths of depravity are far below that. So he was going around to other good-leaning people and presenting the argument, "hey, we shouldn't shove lesser evils in with the greater evils. We're just making greater evils stronger, and possibly making lesser evils into greater evils."
The same goes for pacted individuals. Did they do it for power alone? That's a significant difference from an actual lower plane cultist.

But it felt absolutely impossible to try and change things, and by that point I was so burnt out I couldn't keep going.

I don't necessarily want to make everyone tolerant of evil, or ask that people bend their characters. But I think there are things we could be doing to try and make more grey areas, to keep these things in mind with our characters. And to allow spaces for different varieties of evil to exist.





Also, regarding the term "mover and shaker." I see it exclusively used to describe starting RP that makes waves in the world. Leading groups, doing things, trying to make changes. I've seen it used repeatedly by the team in the past, and it's even in the wiki when you look up RPR, so I chose to use the term for the thread.

Please do not suggest hellballing the hub is what I mean when I say "mover and shaker."

[Ninjimmy]

Also, regarding the term "mover and shaker." I see it exclusively used to describe starting RP that makes waves in the world. Leading groups, doing things, trying to make changes. I've seen it used repeatedly by the team in the past, and it's even in the wiki when you look up RPR, so I chose to use the term for the thread.

Please do not suggest hellballing the hub is what I mean when I say "mover and shaker."

Thaaaaat's on me then for not seeing the term before except in "Earthquake" examples (and for being hyperbolic with a Hellball being an example), though I still don't super like the term and prefer the other 40 RPR examples in how they're worded (though no disrespect to Titania's now I've checked the Wiki again, it's a personal preference).

But if this is the standard usage why does the flipside of it seem to be "Social RP" in this thread? Am I chasing the wrong term here?

[Wishes]

I, for one, love social role players. They scream the loudest.

[Ninjimmy]

I, for one, love social role players. They scream the loudest.

Every possible interpretation of this statement I can come up with is distressing to think about.

I have to respect that.

[Techne]

I'll preface this by saying that I'm not an authority on any of these topics and all of this is from my own perspective

I agree with many points made on both sides, and I applaud that people can have civilized discussions about such topics. I wish more topics were handled with such tact at times in real life.

Yet as one of the 'non-conflict' driven characters/players (and of little consequence outside of those who know her), I'll speak up a bit.

OOC-wise, mechanical conflict kicks my body into overdrive and I get a big boost of adrenaline. I do not like this feeling at all, as my body goes kinda all twitchy and shaky. This happens in almost any PvP related game, and sometimes even in PvE related games as well if it is stressful enough. This is an action that I'm sure will go away in time if I was more receptive to conflict, but since the feeling is so... unpleasant I try my best to avoid conflict. And I'm sure there are others who exhibit similar symptoms. Hells, we may all do.

People are also just naturally conflict avoidant in general. But a little bit of conflict is most definitely healthy.

------Warning IC justification, feel free to bypass-----

IC-wise, I play Gwen, a Selunite paladin / sorcerer (yes, divine dip bad but heck it, I try to RP the class split best I can). I try my best to fulfill the dogma of Selune as best as I can, which one of the first tenants of it is "tolerance and acceptance". Taken from the FR wiki (eww, I know but I don't have any other resources)

"The highest principle of Selûne's ethos was acceptance and tolerance."

Yet another tenant is "Use your brain, and use common sense." (Again from the FR Wiki)

"Worshipers were also urged to be humble and self-reliant, to use common sense and practicality,..."

So in the case of conflict on the server, my paladin is very 'anti-conflict' just due to how her faith is. Which feels counter-productive to playing a paladin, which in and of itself is very much a conflict driven class. But hear out my explanation for why she acts the way she does. She's going to talk to a Banite, she's going to express her general discontent with speaking with the individual through her facial emotions, but otherwise she's not going to do much else. Like a good little Selunite (in my opinion and interpretation of the lore). But if said Banite (or insert other evil faith here) decides to summon undead in front of her, she's going to have an issue.

Gwen isn't going to be a conflict driver in my mind because she is held by her oaths to be tolerant and accepting, to use common sense and not wish for the heads of her enemies on pikes, because that leaves less potential Selunites in the world.

---------------------End of IC justification----------------------

So why does any of what I've said matter? It doesn't. This is just my own justifications for why I do what I do in-game, why I don't seek out fights or arguments about morality. Why people may think Gwen is far too passive on some matters. And my general view on some topics brought up about some characters being conflict adverse / avoidant.

This doesn't, of course, solve any issues that were brought up by those who may not have IC justifications for being conflict avoidant / intolerant. I do agree that we need some escape from stagnation, but I think it needs to be done carefully.

Please, if I need to clarify anything, don't hesitate to quote what I've said or send me a private message on the forum. I understand I may have made little sense.

[Batrachophrenoboocosmomachia]

I REALLY like this thread. So if we could please avoid examples such as "I happen to know that guy and he actually did XYZ that day" it would be great THANK YOU.

Quoted for solidarity.

I, for one, love social role players. They scream the loudest.

Quoted for speaking to my very soul. <3

[Itikar]

I premise that I have not read all this thread in detail, but I noticed in quite a few posts an odd misconception about social roleplayers.

Specifically that social roleplayers do not seek or like conflict. As a social roleplayer who actually -started- or encouraged a few conflicts I can say that there is nothing more wrong.

I noticed that there is the attitude of seeing conflict as synonym with mechanical PvP, and to see any form of conflict that takes different forms as "not conflict". Again, this is another big misconception.

In a roleplay game the core of every conflict lies in the roleplay, not in the mechanics, the mechanics simply add to it. And this makes social roleplayer those with the best tools to start and promote meaningful conflicts.

They are simply less likely to do so mechanically, not even for cowardice or anything, but simply because mechanical PvP looks dull to them. It certainly looks so to me. It's -all the rest-, the gossip, the reputation damage, the intrigue that is the fun part of conflict for a social roleplayer. And frankly, I think that we need more of these types, not fewer, to have entertaining and meaningful conflicts on the server.

If conflict is reduced to pretexts for pushing the attack buttons or a few spells, well, I will be honest, I think there are better games for that than Neverwinter Nights, enhanced or not.

This frankly wrong presentation of social roleplayers reminds me of the presentation roleplayers got on a Star Wars Galaxies server I played on a pair of years ago. Essentially there was the idea that roleplayers were completely bad at PvP. Well, certainly they were not among the best PvPers on that server, but there was precisely nothing that prevented them from do so, and a few pretty respectable PvPers on that very same server were famous roleplayers.

I think that more than falling in the socializer category of Richard Bartle, the mentality that tends to avoid conflict the most here is that of the achiever, rather than that of the socializer. Bartle himself warned about achievers, before socializers, being most in conflict with killers. Achiever-socializers are the types of players who may pretty much shut down conflict, for the mere fact that they do not wish to lose what they achieved, either be it quarters, powers, friends, or whatever. And these are also the characters who may more easily gain a position of power and hold it, due to their qualities. And I can see how that can restrain conflict in many circumstances.

P.S.
If somebody is not familiar with Bartle classification of player types: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartle_ta ... ayer_types

[Ork]

"Social Roleplayers" of our discussion aren't the roleplayers you're defining, Itikar. Clearly a semantic issue, but I'd suggest reading up on the context. Good content though. Bartle's is always a good read.

[AstralUniverse]

I think people refer to Social RP as simply RP that doesnt drive conflict. For example, a language lecture that has no weight and even if enemies spot one another in it, they are likely to respect the lecture and not cause a mess in it. Another example is a festival, or a dart contest, or theater play. These are all 'social RP' and they have their place, no doubt. The thing is... where does the line do in regards to how far to we surpress conflict to let more Social Rp pass undisturbed. That's the issue.

[Aradin]

But if this is the standard usage why does the flipside of it seem to be "Social RP" in this thread? Am I chasing the wrong term here?

Well, they're not opposites, certainly.
I think generally that when people refer to 'social RP', they are referring to RP that does not involve conflict. Weddings, language lessons, festivals, poetry slams, archery contests, etc. When people refer to 'movers and shakers', they are referring to RP that shakes up the established norms. Ousting current governments, making political change, changing or destroying factions, starting wars, etc.
All the different things I just mentioned above can be tip-top RP that is fun for everyone involved, and even the most peaceful things can make lasting marks in players' memories and in the world. I think it's precisely this wide variety of great roleplay that makes Arelith so nifty. Furthermore, people shouldn't feel guilty if they just want to do social RP and not participate in possibly-stressful conflict RP. You do you.
(As an aside it's not like people who largely enjoy social RP never do conflict, and vice versa. These aren't black-and-white playstyles; characters involve themselves with lots of other characters, events, stories, etc., whether they're conflict-causing or not.)

But the discussion in this thread is on conflict-averse characters & factions in positions of power, and the idea of them favouring non-conflict RP to such a degree that they use their vast resources to snuff out conflict before it has a chance to impact the game world (and, usually, them and their allies). And I think the responsibility here really falls on a select few people: settlement leaders, and the leaders of important factions.
This is a sandbox world where lots of people want the opportunity to tell different stories, and I'm firmly of the belief that faction leaders/settlement leaders have a special responsibility to use their resources to facilitate the stories of characters that want to interact with their faction/settlement.

My hot take: If you are a faction/settlement leader who is actively shutting down stories, even ones that would impact your faction/settlement negatively, you shouldn't be a faction/settlement leader. You are in an advantageous position with lots of resources and connections. Those things should not be used to make other players unable to tell stories. You can absolutely oppose the cult edging in on your territory, your clan can totally end up being the one to take down the evil necromancer. But if you don't give the other side something to work with, some kind of chance to RP and be in the spotlight, you are misusing your power.
For settlement leaders specifically: If you don't want to be involved in conflict RP at all, don't lead a settlement. Simple as that. Because conflict RP will be forced upon you; it's the nature of the position. And when it does happen it'll be up to you to decide whether the aggressor gets a chance to have some fun or whether you grind them into paste and exile them.

I think at the end of the day we all just need to remember we're telling a shared story, and to try and make that story as fun as possible for everyone involved. I think if you have that in mind, then you can't go too wrong.

[Preytoria]

The amount of vitriol I am reading here for 'Social RP' is actually laughable. Arelith is a casual roleplaying server. That alone should really curb people's expectations. But to go a step further: do you realize how unconvincing you all sound? It essentially boils down to: 'Yeah, I hate your roleplaying and it shouldn't exist.' This isn't a good argument, you know? Like -- if your idea was to convince people or change things is blatantly spitting on them and kicking dirt in their face? PROBABLY won't work. You can try to softball it all you want, but I'm not buying it.

You aren't going to get there by violently shaking someone who just likes to log in and RP in the tavern. That's kind of THEIR decision. Since it's their character. People need /convinced/. Not told what to do or shamed into what to do. I never thought I'd enjoy playing Underdark. But someone convinced me to give it a try. Now I love it. If you need more convincing on why screaming REEEE at people doing things you don't like doesn't work, err, just look at US history alone...

I also really don't like suggesting more handcuffs on UD players (or really anyone!). You realize I like to /play the game/, right? That's why I log in, actually. I would go so far to wager that is why a lot of people log in. So if you start limiting what I can or can't do more and more just because of what race/class I picked or what frickin' starting city I am in -- you're really losing me. I'm pretty sure that is something most players would hate: artificially losing more and more rights as a player because...uh...reasons.

Really if proposed solutions begin or end with taking away player agency, there's a good chance it's a bad idea. Let me give you a perfect example:

I play a drow. I occasionally do some moving-and-shaking as people have described. But I do play with non-drow. There have been /countless/ times where plots that would 'stir the pot,' IMMEDIATELY DIES because...

The in-game clock says it's a no go for my drow! But hey! It's lore friendly that I can't play on a different server due to the in-game clock. If I run into a brick wall, I at least want it to be another player's interactions or some legitimate OOC reason (like I had to tag out for RL stuff). Not some wall that is put up for the sake of being there. If you want to hold up lore as a sacred cow never to be harmed, do not be surprised when it limits what can be done in the server.

I understand I am speaking with a degree of hyperbole. And certainly more experienced players here can attest that (perhaps) without some sort of limitation, drow would just berserk all the time above. And, likewise, there certainly needs to exist SOME barriers for lore lest the point of playing 'Online D&D' be made moot. A perfect example of this would be ensuring monster races are not accepted without hesitation across the land. But if you lean too heavily into the opposite decision (All players MUST KILL MONSTERS ON SIGHT) -- you just limit player agency for those of the below.

Lore is a great reason for why so much conflict happens. You are faith x, so I hate you. Or you're a drow, so I hate you. But we need to be cognizant of when we are literally limiting ourselves and plots for the sake of it.

All of this is why I think the exile system has proven itself to be a bad idea. That power for players to further shape cities has, ironically, turned around and pointed back at itself. Personally, I think you need not look any further than realizing that allowing systems that dictate /where/ someone can RP is a bad idea. Let guards do their guard RP. Let people take risks. Let people be proactive rather than slap a bandage on it and kick-back to relax.

Admittedly, even if you removed it entirely, it sounds like there would still be a lot of problems that 'surface evil' runs into. I can't speak to those. I can only say that Andunor seems like a good system? We have a lot of shady people/spies/traitors but it rarely boils down to 'Kill someone repeatedly until they leave for good.' Even the recent war we had seemed pretty good RP wise from what I saw. I killed people, yeah. But it was not a 'every single time I see them I fish for people to execute them.' Likewise, I only saw it turn into a full-on brawl /once/. And that is apparently 'pretty good' going by how awful Andunor was in the past with stuff like this (hellballs in the hub and stuff). But that was before my time.

I hope some sort of solution is found. But bashing on 'social rpers' and imposing more restrictions probably isn't the solution. Even if you don't like social rp, you have to admit (especially if you are team good), that it is essentially the thing your character is trying to /protect/. If everyone is just a rampaging crusaders, no one is. You're just the justice league without the actual innocent civilians and citizens to stand up for. It provides background -- even if you do think it mundane. Need more proof? God damn commoner is a CLASS YOU CAN PLAY AS. Though certainly they can be troublemakers

EDIT: I did think of some examples where player restriction is a good thing. Primarily: Dis and Shadovar with their straight up 'No, do not PvP here' rules. I've definitley used those and see them be used as great negotiation places between two hostile parties. Bear in mind these are relatively small zones compared to the servers as a whole. And would it be more interesting if the two parties had to meet someplace without those restrictions? Possibly. But I have had good experiences with them both and thus will speak to their worth despite them technically limiting players (No murdering allowed!)

[Party in the forest at midnight]

When used in a derogatory way, "social RP" usually refers to people doing family/relationship RP, and putting that above all else. Some other people have been calling it "Second Life RP." Which is a game that lets you build whatever you want, but ended up being a dating/romance/fetish sim.

I said in a post yesterday that I didn't want to bring social RP up, I don't want to say any kind of RP is any more valid than anyone else's. And now the thread's been derailed while people argue semantics, which is getting away from the point.

I don't think hosting events like language lessons or parties should even enter the conversation at all. Players should never be made to feel bad if they're trying to hold an event to get people to come and RP and do something.

Social RP isn't the heart of the problem anyways. The issue is that settlements give mechanics that enable shutting down stories before they start, and that there's a lot of incentive to maintain the status quo. Which has led to both good and evil feeling the need to conform or else.

I personally don't want to see the rug ripped out from under people. People can go and tell whatever stories they want. I just would like for there to be more spaces where mechanics can't be used to shut down conflict.

[The GrumpyCat]

But if this is the standard usage why does the flipside of it seem to be "Social RP" in this thread? Am I chasing the wrong term here?

Well, they're not opposites, certainly.
I think generally that when people refer to 'social RP', they are referring to RP that does not involve conflict. Weddings, language lessons, festivals, poetry slams, archery contests, etc. When people refer to 'movers and shakers', they are referring to RP that shakes up the established norms. Ousting current governments, making political change, changing or destroying factions, starting wars, etc.
All the different things I just mentioned above can be tip-top RP that is fun for everyone involved, and even the most peaceful things can make lasting marks in players' memories and in the world. I think it's precisely this wide variety of great roleplay that makes Arelith so nifty. Furthermore, people shouldn't feel guilty if they just want to do social RP and not participate in possibly-stressful conflict RP. You do you.
(As an aside it's not like people who largely enjoy social RP never do conflict, and vice versa. These aren't black-and-white playstyles; characters involve themselves with lots of other characters, events, stories, etc., whether they're conflict-causing or not.)

But the discussion in this thread is on conflict-averse characters & factions in positions of power, and the idea of them favouring non-conflict RP to such a degree that they use their vast resources to snuff out conflict before it has a chance to impact the game world (and, usually, them and their allies). And I think the responsibility here really falls on a select few people: settlement leaders, and the leaders of important factions.
This is a sandbox world where lots of people want the opportunity to tell different stories, and I'm firmly of the belief that faction leaders/settlement leaders have a special responsibility to use their resources to facilitate the stories of characters that want to interact with their faction/settlement.

My hot take: If you are a faction/settlement leader who is actively shutting down stories, even ones that would impact your faction/settlement negatively, you shouldn't be a faction/settlement leader. You are in an advantageous position with lots of resources and connections. Those things should not be used to make other players unable to tell stories. You can absolutely oppose the cult edging in on your territory, your clan can totally end up being the one to take down the evil necromancer. But if you don't give the other side something to work with, some kind of chance to RP and be in the spotlight, you are misusing your power.
For settlement leaders specifically: If you don't want to be involved in conflict RP at all, don't lead a settlement. Simple as that. Because conflict RP will be forced upon you; it's the nature of the position. And when it does happen it'll be up to you to decide whether the aggressor gets a chance to have some fun or whether you grind them into paste and exile them.

I think at the end of the day we all just need to remember we're telling a shared story, and to try and make that story as fun as possible for everyone involved. I think if you have that in mind, then you can't go too wrong.

I've bolded and highlighed something I think is very important about this post, which mostly highlights the bits I think is really vital.

It's FINE to have parties, language lessons, chill out. Everyone needs that! Heck even faction/settlment leaders need that to chill out! There is - and this is vital - NOTHING WRONG with social RP. Hells! If anything In my opinion it's utterly vital to the server!

Many, many years back, one of the main reasons I moved as a player from City of Arabel to Arelith was that City of Arabel Dms started 'cracking down' on all social rp. Stating that it wasn't 'proper' rp unless it was conflict or intreage. And whilst I also adore those two things - I also want to just have fun, relaxed events and such.
(Not minding that often such calm, laid back events can end up as conflict, if you know how to use them. But that's an aside.)

The only time I personally have issues with Social rp, is when the players in question work to exclude all sorts of other RP, to keep the 'status quo'. As the above said.

And often - if I'm being very cynical, I wonder if some of this shutting down isn't a 'meta' way of 'winning' a situation. To explain...

'Ok so the Banites keep doing nasty things.'
'Yeah.'
'They're spoiling for a fight! They want [insert faction/group here] to respond right? They want us to fight back yeah?'
'Uh huh yeah. And we should right.'
'No.'
'No?'
'No. Because that just gives them rp, conflict, response. If we fight back, some of us will loose. And that means WE loose, get it?'
'I... guess so?'
'Ok so what we do is just ignore them.'
'Ignore them?'
'Ignore them. They thrive on conflict. If no one responds, if everyone just ignores their attempts at stirring the pot, then they'll get bored eventualy as players and we can claim we didn't loose any conflicts at all! I'm known as a successful leader! Huzzah!'

The above is, in my opinion, pretty dreadful and should be avoided. But I do wonder if it's one (hopefully small) reason for lack of conflict. People don't want to loose, or be seen as loosing and - if you don't play, you don't loose!

It's a sad thought that I hope isn't true.

Also Reguarding Exiles...

Whilst I get that they can be conflict stoppers, and I'm certainly in favour of tightening up the numbers/resources allowance and cost... (same with Pariah in theory) They also do serve a good purpose.

Because whilst conflict is good, it also becomes a bit meaningless and irritating if there's no good way to respond to it in its extremes.

To put it another way

I'm definatly in favour of preventing a settlment from exiling every single Banite they see.
But if the High Banite regularly goes around murdering citizens of that settlment, he probably shouldn't be able to just waltz in whenever there arn't enough high level pcs about to stop him.

[Gouge Away]

A better setting would probably see LG zealotry as something almost as undesirable and unwelcome in cities as evil. Most citizens whether peasants or merchants and tradespeople are just trying to make a living and lean neutral. Nobles might want laws enforced to keep the rabble in line but they're probably more LN or LE historically and would be more interested in themselves than the greater good. The lower class in the slums and docks probably wouldn't trust "the law" to see after their best interests and would probably lean neutral or chaotic.

I'd love to see paladin's presence seen as just as undesirable as a necromancers (at least, until that paladin is needed.) Most people in the game or IRL don't want the forces of law and "good" in their business all the time yet in the game that seems to be the default we always come back to. I do think some of this is the limits of collaborative imagination though, since there's no one really steering the ship our RP mass-minds seem to always steer back to certain safe and rather expected defaults.

[Ninjimmy]

I think between the 5-6 answers I got I've got a better feel for what the consensus is when using the term now, I didn't expect it to generate multiple takes but I suppose it's worth clarifying for everyone what people are talking about.

But to then derail off topic in a different direction: How badly does Exile really shut down RP? I get that not being able to go into settlements without a disguise or stealth is an inconvenience, but it's still quite possible isn't it?

My understanding of it mechanically was that guards didn't just ignore you walking right passed them (which is still a mild annoyance for immersion since you can pickpocket them and they just stand and yell that they've been pickpocketed rather than do anything about it) and if someone had read the exile board/notice they might flip out and try to get you to leave. I think in a few it was still possible to run for election WHILE exiled? Although I can think of a fun instance where a settlement leader used exiles to get rid of political opponents which was kind of interesting since it meant players who wanted to oust them needed to think around corners.

I think if I was playing an antagonistic character, exile is a good way to build your cred ("the incumbent is corrupt" , "Sneaking in to prove they can't stop you and undermine them", etc) but I can equally see that it could just see you meta-excluded since (as has been established) hanging with a bad crowd can have consequences IC.

[Scurvy Cur]

But the discussion in this thread is on conflict-averse characters & factions in positions of power, and the idea of them favouring non-conflict RP to such a degree that they use their vast resources to snuff out conflict before it has a chance to impact the game world (and, usually, them and their allies). And I think the responsibility here really falls on a select few people: settlement leaders, and the leaders of important factions.
This is a sandbox world where lots of people want the opportunity to tell different stories, and I'm firmly of the belief that faction leaders/settlement leaders have a special responsibility to use their resources to facilitate the stories of characters that want to interact with their faction/settlement.

My hot take: If you are a faction/settlement leader who is actively shutting down stories, even ones that would impact your faction/settlement negatively, you shouldn't be a faction/settlement leader. You are in an advantageous position with lots of resources and connections. Those things should not be used to make other players unable to tell stories. You can absolutely oppose the cult edging in on your territory, your clan can totally end up being the one to take down the evil necromancer. But if you don't give the other side something to work with, some kind of chance to RP and be in the spotlight, you are misusing your power.

For settlement leaders specifically: If you don't want to be involved in conflict RP at all, don't lead a settlement. Simple as that. Because conflict RP will be forced upon you; it's the nature of the position. And when it does happen it'll be up to you to decide whether the aggressor gets a chance to have some fun or whether you grind them into paste and exile them.

If anyone bothers reading 3 paragraphs in this thread, it should be these.

The thread has gotten a bit far afield, but I think the big issue that the OP is trying to raise has nothing to do with SocRP vs conflict RP. It has less to do with mechanics than it has to do with culture (though mechanics can shape culture, definitely). It's not a social RP issue. It's a risk aversion issue, which I think is at a 14 year high point for the server. I can't think of a point in the server's history where the surface dynamic has been less healthy towards players looking to shake up the status quo than it presently is.