Conflict and the surface.

[Ninjimmy]

Actually, this realisation came to me during a conversation but I think a solid 90% of the issues we have with Evil characters having problems on the Surface is down to summons.

Like... if you play an evil character but don't summon undead or fiends, I think the odds of being able to pull off your grand schemes/plots goes up dramatically. At the cost of avoiding 3-4 spells.

But this is based on personal experience/exposure so figured I'd open it to the thread to see if anyone else thinks differently.

Because even Bane, if someone worships Bane but doesn't summon undead/fiends I think they can probably thrive in a fair few societies. Though once more, solely on personal observations, my one Evil character has thus far had a ride almost as smooth as my good characters he just gets funnier looks when he sneers at fallen enemies.

[CNS]

I think what ruins the idea of praying to multiple faiths is that some of the faiths go so hard to evil I don't know if there's any way to really make peace with it.

for example if you pray to an evil Faith you're not just somebody with a different set of ideologies you're raising the undead or summoning demons and devils. Like, how do you deal with such extremes? this is specifically a problem on the server not like forgotten realms lore in general. Like I totally understand why a farmer might pray to an evil deity but would that farmer still pray to said deity if it's followers or running around rampaging with demons and devils? maybe out of fear, but the majority of the players are heroes not farmers so to expect the same is not a good example


So, I think that's the downfall. I like that the queen is a banite in Cordor. But she isn't running through the streets summoning demons and devils or raising undead period at least not that we know of O:

I think this is both getting and missing the points being made.

On one hand, no one is saying Cordor should be home to and welcoming of people raising undead and summoning fiends in the streets. But the problem people have is even the slightest indication you might be sympathetic to or worship any deity on the evil end of the spectrum is seen as just as bad. The outcome generally ends up the same.

"for example if you pray to an evil Faith you're not just somebody with a different set of ideologies you're raising the undead or summoning demons and devils."

This specifically is what people are getting at. It doesn't have to mean that, but currently it often might as well.

'We've had problems with a person of faction of deity X in the past, therefore any and all PC's associated with the same deity can be tarred with the same brush." Might be a generalization of the problem, despite how un-setting and lore appropriate it is.

That's not to say the other side, those worshiping evil deities don't have a part to play as well. Going to overt and extreme places will nearly always be viewed negatively.

[-XXX-]

I think what ruins the idea of praying to multiple faiths is that some of the faiths go so hard to evil I don't know if there's any way to really make peace with it.

Pragmatism and fear.
Gods are real in Faerun and interfere with mortals often and eagerly (for example Selune is said to always answer a prayer - how insane is that?!).
What mortals think about Bane or Talos is inconsequential as the gods can easily just reach down and crush anyone who displeases them.

Beggars can't be choosers and if some less benevolent entity offers aid to a character in an existential moment, then this concept suddenly becomes much less complicated.
The entire lore ~does~ make sense and is designed to present the D&D players with some interesting moral dilemmas.


Applying that to Arelith, the lore is being grossly spoiled by acknowledging respawning as an IC reality.

Just consider a good old-school PnP campaign. It's perfectly plausible for the DM to offer an out for a party by having the wizard conjure a fiend to help them out from a sticky situation - with the promise of unforeseen consequences in the future OFC. Most players would say a resounding YES to that as it drives the story and makes things more interesting.

Now translate that to Arelith - party runs into an OP boss and the poor under leveled wizard who learned the gate spell just yesterday and still doesn't know all the -streams yet is literally presented with the choice of a) full party respawn, or b) summoning a balor, saving the party, almost instantly being exiled from everywhere and being actively hunted by a clique of undying paladins from now until forever as his reward.

[Xerah]

'We've had problems with a person of faction of deity X in the past, therefore any and all PC's associated with the same deity can be tarred with the same brush."

This is one of my biggest grips. I've gotten into arguments over this because someone in ~AR80 had an issue with Bane followers, that now 80 years later, they are still an issue (this goes into never rolling characters either). I often refer to this as the "characters never forget" issue. I do think it's not an issue for one character not forgetting things another character did, but it's terribly stifling to apply that to every potential member of that faction/faith/etc.

[Flower Power]

Now, the real problem is that this "extremely negative" view of people doing bad things is not universally applied. There are plenty of palemasters and necromancers and overtly evil individuals around who are treated as just fine and dandy by the Forces That Be and their many paladins - who then also turn around and react to other characters doing the exact same things with immense vitriol and anger, squashing them out as soon as they crop up.

Oftentimes, it doesn't even have to be someone doing something evil, just something different that threatens the carefully constructed sense of stability and security that has been built up.

Oftentimes, the methods being deployed to halt people's attempts at trying to do something of their own are both IC and OOC in nature, in the form of making deliberate use of the IC mechanical powers that are available to players to make conflict suffer cribdeath and in the form of some less than pleasant OOC behavior and rumormilling.

I think it's very important to take a good, long look at all of this and (as a server) ask ourselves: why is it all right by Steve McPaladin for this one character to do something dodgy, but not for another character to do the exact same thing? Is it really the character that's being the deciding factor in how these matters are being perceived? And is that particularly a cool thing for players to do?

And maybe, just maybe, we can finally start to be fine with opposing our friends' characters when we really ought to.

[Xerah]

why is it all right by Steve McPaladin for this one character to do something dodgy, but not for another character to do the exact same thing? Is it really the character that's being the deciding factor in how these matters are being perceived? And is that particularly a cool thing for players to do?

I've never thought of things like this for some reason, but it really grinds my gears now that you've mentioned it. I just shelved a character for this exact reason (it wasn't even targeted at me, just the idea that it was happening there concerned me for storytelling potential).

There are totally legit IC reasons why Steve might do that (he might not actually be a paladin; he could be a liar; he could be manipulating people/places; etc.) but it still comes across as super confusing ICly and OOCly because the other people involved ignore it. This usually leads to me moving my character focus or shelfling until things change.

[andthenthatwasthat]

There are totally legit IC reasons why Steve might do that (he might not actually be a paladin; he could be a liar; he could be manipulating people/places; etc.)...

Or simply, Paladins are not infallible avatars of their gods. Even potential OOC that manifests IC could still be attributed to that character's personality. It is up to others to decide how they react to that personality. For example, most of my "evil" characters actually see Paladins as evil (and see themselves as neutral more often than not) based on Paladins' actions and I RP it that way. One cannot simply say: "Everything I do is good because my character sheet says Paladin" and expect others to fall in line.

Also, it is not that players (and their characters) prefer "good". They might simply prefer the status quo that "Lawful" "Good" (note the quotes) factions bring. As an example, I used to play a high priestess of Cyric that exclusively worked with Triadists to further her own goals because they were easier to trust than some evil mastermind.

The main problem is the fantasy setting of Forgotten Realms is just that: a fantasy setting (mostly a caricature of one actually). When you bring players' own perspectives on good and evil from RL, then you get these conflicts that expose the thin writing of the fantasy setting and establish a new reality that is somewhere between the fantasy and RL.

And to play a devil's advocate: if others can so easily stifle one's evil mastermind RP, maybe they aren't an evil mastermind they think they are. And that is fine, too.

[-XXX-]

And to play a devil's advocate: if others can so easily stifle one's evil mastermind RP, maybe they aren't an evil mastermind they think they are. And that is fine, too.

Always covering one's base, only ever discussing sensitive information behind locked door, warded against scrying and with true sight on, while never giving any hint of your character's intentions while in the open is as uninteractive as it gets.
Giving other characters an opportunity to overhear sensitive information or witness something that they shouldn't opens up avenues for better storytelling that can be enjoyed by more players.

Actually, this realisation came to me during a conversation but I think a solid 90% of the issues we have with Evil characters having problems on the Surface is down to summons.

Like... if you play an evil character but don't summon undead or fiends, I think the odds of being able to pull off your grand schemes/plots goes up dramatically. At the cost of avoiding 3-4 spells.

We have three classes that are defined by their summons. Not using them ever comes at the cost of greatly reduced mechanical power in exchange for ...nothing.
Furthermore, using those summons often comes at the price that is actually WORSE THAN MECHANICAL DEATH - let that sink in for a moment.


...are warlocks, blackguards and pale masters supposed to be only playable in the UD now?
Imagine making a totem druid and being told "do not summon creatures or animal companions ever" - that's the spot these classes are in right now.

[Gouge Away]

Well I have a few thoughts on why a paladin wouldn't immediately slaughter someone who shows a sign of evil...

First is the obvious, a lawful good paladin with any kindness in their heart should think every human/elf/dwarf/other acceptable race has some good in them and they should be saved not slaughtered. That concept doesn't seem to be too popular on Arelith so moving on.

Second reason, smiting every potential evildoer you see should be frowned upon in civilizations because it's bad for business. In the big surface cities the attitude should be "as long as they don't cause trouble here, their money spends too." You can't tell me all the merchants and the government of a large trade and port city are LG. They're probably primarily Neutral Greedy. Rumored pirates and necromancers and weird religious types who behave should be tolerated until they actually commit a serious crime in the city walls not until they're spotted with a tattoo or a rumor spreads they may or may not have summoned a Vrock in a distant desert when fighting orcs. They all have deep pockets and access to different sources of goods to sell, don't they?

That's why I think paladins who're unflexible zealots and prone to kill evil at first sight should be considered a nuisance in Cordor, not the moral standard or the ones running the show. Strict morality doesn't encourage the flow of commerce at all.

Third reason? Our characters know religion but they don't know "good" and "evil." Paladin inquisitors going around killing people rumored to be evil should spread tremendous fear and confusion even in the non-evil folks as they're all probably wondering if that dirty thought they had about a tavern wench that time is going to get them smited too. Extreme lawful good is an incredibly high standard to live up to. So again, another reason zealot paladins ought to be an unwanted presence if you ask me.

Last but I think a key reason all characters should strive to maintain tension and animosity without immediately going to violence... There should be forces much stronger than our characters at play and our characters should be mindful of the escalation that would cause. A paladin may not fear retribution from powerful forces if they kill a Banite but everyone else in the city sure would. The Church of Bane and Void Cults and Malarites and so on are very scary, very violent and very numerous and that paladin killing a Banite for being a Banite-- not in self defense-- would outrage the populace because they'd be terrified a platoon of Banites would should up demanding revenge. That's how wars get started. We have to stop playing our characters like they're the most powerful superheroes in this world and there's no one above them and no one else matters, they should be concerned with the snowball effects their actions will cause if they really care about the religion or faction the represent.

[DM Rex]

Consider also not only the players, but the NPC presence and expectations. Undead, fiends, and such are all extremely terrifying to your fellow common humanoid.

If you practice openly, you can expect open resistance. Even if player towns were to decide "yeah demons are okay", the NPCs would not consent to this change.

But evil is not only defined by having summons, but that is the most direct and obvious route to display it.

[Xerah]

If you practice openly, you can expect open resistance. Even if player towns were to decide "yeah demons are okay", the NPCs would not consent to this change.

I don't think that's universally true. There are plenty of places in forgotten realms lore where these things would be accepted. It is a problem that we're not allowed this on the surface on Arelith.

[Gouge Away]

If you practice openly, you can expect open resistance. Even if player towns were to decide "yeah demons are okay", the NPCs would not consent to this change.

I don't think that's universally true. There are plenty of places in forgotten realms lore where these things would be accepted. It is a problem that we're not allowed this on the surface on Arelith.

I agree and I'd ask, when you say "NPCS" who are you talking about? The peasants, the tradespeople, who? I don't think we're giving NPCs enough complexity if they're all just lawful and good background props who are terrified by any sign of evil in a world filled with the supernatural.

[Bunnysmack]

Actually, this realisation came to me during a conversation but I think a solid 90% of the issues we have with Evil characters having problems on the Surface is down to summons.

Like... if you play an evil character but don't summon undead or fiends, I think the odds of being able to pull off your grand schemes/plots goes up dramatically. At the cost of avoiding 3-4 spells.

We have three classes that are defined by their summons. Not using them ever comes at the cost of greatly reduced mechanical power in exchange for ...nothing.
Furthermore, using those summons often comes at the price that is actually WORSE THAN MECHANICAL DEATH - let that sink in for a moment.


...are warlocks, blackguards and pale masters supposed to be only playable in the UD now?
Imagine making a totem druid and being told "do not summon creatures or animal companions ever" - that's the spot these classes are in right now.

Having played one of those classes for a long time, I'm actually fine with that arrangement. Yes, getting caught with evil summons out tends to get you blacklisted from much of the surface, but that is precisely why people should have disguises, invisibility wands/potions, lenses, etc. ready when using those creatures. When playing any of those three classes, there are all sorts of OOC Arelith disclaimers stating that these are facially evil professions that will likely result in you being targeted by good aligned groups. Be smart/careful, or find a less sunny home.

Besides which, Underdark is actually not the only refuge for an outted fiend-caller/Animator. They also can join the Banites, Sencliff, or our friendly neighborhood doomsday cult that is consistently the talk of the town.

[torugor]

Just to remind...

Paladins dont need to be only good. They are required to be lawful as well..
See a lot of paladins eager to pass over their respective cities's laws to punish what they feel are evil.
wonder if there is the 'gods will take off paladin powers for not respecting the code' thing in arelith.

[The GrumpyCat]

I agree and I'd ask, when you say "NPCS" who are you talking about? The peasants, the tradespeople, who? I don't think we're giving NPCs enough complexity if they're all just lawful and good background props who are terrified by any sign of evil in a world filled with the supernatural.

It's not just about the NPCs. The PCs should have issues with someone who, at the least, is /pacted/ to a demon/devil if they're anything like moral.

Because Devils are utterly, immeasurably, evil. They're the sort of creatures who, each and every one of them, would burn and murder an orphanage of children, likely for the sheer joy of it. And those who are pacted to them are generally the ones that are there holding the torches at said burning.

Undead are perhaps a little better, but in terms of 'dodgy' it's still pretty high on the list, and it's certainly pretty gross.

I don't think that's universally true. There are plenty of places in forgotten realms lore where these things would be accepted. It is a problem that we're not allowed this on the surface on Arelith.

I'm not sure what you want out of this?

There are places where it's accepted yes, but they're either very specific culturatly (Mullihorandi) Or else really, really nasty areas (Thay). We have a really nasty area, it's called Andunor.

We could add another 'evil' area to the surface, but when you think about it, I'm not actually sure what it achieves?

Lets say we add an Openly Evil, Undead Necromantic Tolerating City on the Surface. We will call it Mordor.

Huzzah!

Now... I mean... I guess it means that instead of having to hang out with gnolls and stuff, you only have other surfacers to hang out with (presuming, for some reason, that gnolls and so forth arn't allowed there) So there's that but... what else? You've just moved the problem. It's not like the good guys are going to be eager to visit somewhere so utterly, irredemably evil. So your'e still stuck in a social wasteland, only it's sunnier.

I'm not saying more shady/neutral areas are a bad thing. I think they'r ea good thing. And I think that it would be better if, in the case of necromancers/warlocks ect people looked for avenues of interaction that arn't mechanical stop points (exile, death, ect) but I'm unconvinced that making Evil!Ton is neccesarly actually going to help.

Paladins dont need to be only good. They are required to be lawful as well..
See a lot of paladins eager to pass over their respective cities's laws to punish what they feel are evil.
wonder if there is the 'gods will take off paladin powers for not respecting the code' thing in arelith.

Lawful does not neccesarly mean 'obays the laws at all times.' Sure Paladins are often more likely to, but if they feel the law is corrupt, or impeding Goodly work they may choose to ignore it.

[Drowboy]

I sincerely wish dnd hadn't used lawful and chaotic as the words for these (or eschewed alignment altogether and trusted players to not be led by the nose) but I guess it's catchier than oathbound vs freewheeling

[Ebonstar]

uh hard pass sorry, evil has its bastion in Minmir on the surface and its smugglers on Sencliff, my two cents

That's like... 2 places out of 13.
For a forgotten realms setting to work, the ratio needs to be more evened out.
Evil is ever present in the Forgotten Realms. On Arelith it's being instantly squashed by an overwhelming force of PCs.

Regardless of the IG power balance, I do not believe that this is accurately representing a Forgotten Realms setting:
Just look at the prevailing IG worships - there's plenty of characters who pay homage to the Triad, Lathander, Helm, and some of the goodly aligned racial deities.
HOWEVER, people of Faerun DO worship evil gods - a farmer for example would pray not only to Lathander for safety and protection, but also to Talos in order to appease him enough not to send some catastrophe on his crops.
Along a similar vein a merchant or a traveler would not only pray to Tymora for luck but also to Beshaba to avoid misfortune.
Someone who's in love would not only pray to Sune, but might also consider a prayer to Bane in order to stay clear of hate and envy...
etc.

Pretty much the only overtly evil deity that the people of Arelith somewhat acknowledge ATM is Umberlee. All other evil faiths seem to be met with extreme adversity, which is rather "Unforgotten Realmslike"

yes but the poster wasnt just talking about praying for no lightning while praying for rain. They said their friends could not play evil on the surface, and that most people who chose to play evil are driven below. Those are not ones who just pray to multiple gods, those are the overly agrressive evil, baby eating, undead horde animating rotten to their very core evil who just dont understand what subtlety or villainy is without wearing their Praise Bane T shirt off the boat.

if we were playing on the mainland with its vast lands and cities we could look on the map, and yes you have distinct evil bastions above and below. Zhentil Keep, Mulmaster, Hellgate Keep, Thay are the top four. There are others that fall into the mainly neutral and the ones mainly good and then you have the predominantly good. You have a few that shift this way and that, but over all those Four are the Evil HotSpots.

So for the size of Arelith having two evil hotspots is alot, when the mainland being huge has a main four.

[DM Rex]

Unfortunately I must advise, while it might seem like attacking the choices that (insert alignment here, followed by class as applicable) is directing this thread away from the notion of discussing creating story over "shotgun PVP scenarios".

If we cannot refocus this thread, it will be locked.

[Xerah]

I don't think that's universally true. There are plenty of places in forgotten realms lore where these things would be accepted. It is a problem that we're not allowed this on the surface on Arelith.

I'm not sure what you want out of this?

There are places where it's accepted yes, but they're either very specific culturatly (Mullihorandi) Or else really, really nasty areas (Thay). We have a really nasty area, it's called Andunor.

We could add another 'evil' area to the surface, but when you think about it, I'm not actually sure what it achieves?

Lets say we add an Openly Evil, Undead Necromantic Tolerating City on the Surface. We will call it Mordor.

Huzzah!

Now... I mean... I guess it means that instead of having to hang out with gnolls and stuff, you only have other surfacers to hang out with (presuming, for some reason, that gnolls and so forth arn't allowed there) So there's that but... what else? You've just moved the problem. It's not like the good guys are going to be eager to visit somewhere so utterly, irredemably evil. So your'e still stuck in a social wasteland, only it's sunnier.

I'm not saying more shady/neutral areas are a bad thing. I think they'r ea good thing. And I think that it would be better if, in the case of necromancers/warlocks ect people looked for avenues of interaction that arn't mechanical stop points (exile, death, ect) but I'm unconvinced that making Evil!Ton is neccesarly actually going to help.

There is 0 player agency on any of this. Despite most commoners being TN, they only care that evil isn't being open for some reason. It's a very weird design choice by the DM staff. It used to happen much more in Wharftown when it was historically owned by "bad guys" that the people there would have adjusted, but that was always squashed by the "NPCs leaving". Maybe they are all LG, I don't know, but farmer Jim will get used to seeing guards patrolling with hellhounds if they are there to stop the orcs from ruining his farm.

Yes, there is Sencliff (not on the island and pirate theme), Bante Temple (not really for everyone), and Sib (not on the island or a real settlement) but are issues with those options. There is not a generic "bad guy" surface place that people can hang out in and it's a shame (insert "but wharftown" here). Numerous people from all sides are saying that this is a determinant to the RP culture. (This doesn't have to be a place where mummies, vampires, imps, balors, etc. are hanging out either, since most people would put them away anyway.)

[Seven Sons of Sin]

There are some cultural problems, too -

When one pirate is sighted in Minmir, people can get really crazy and Speedy everyone, and suddenly there are 20 epics swarming for a lone pirate.
When one four Andunorians are sighted on the Surface somewhere, literally LIGHT THE BEACONS LET US GET EVERYONE IN HERE RIGHT NOW.
When one bandit rolls up, it is like THIS IS WHO HE IS, WHO HIS MOTHER IS, AND EVERYTHING ABOUT HIM.

There is certainly a lack of finesse among certain circles. I will forthrightly say this is an example of "ur doing it wrong."

Here are some solutions and SSoS hot-takes:

1. Allow low-level Palemasters, Blackguards, and Warlocks the option to "reskin" their summons as Summon Animal equivalents.

2. Somehow make communication via messenger more difficult. I'd say altogether get rid of the GSF:Illusion benefit of sending a speedy on the go. The fact it is so easy and efficient to mobilize disparate forces leads to problems.

As much as I hated Mithreas' point about "Guldorand doesn't need a Speedy, they can walk to Bendir." He did, kind of, have a point. The prevalence of Speedy Messengers has meant that communication can happen instantaneously, and en masse. I think this can help foster some of the problematic behaviours above.

3. Have DMs punish the above behaviour as bad form or bad roleplay. Have DMs suggest to the 20 swarming epics that "hey, you can still be a good guy and like not do this."

4. Have some sort of top-down/server mechanic/DM incentive to make players second-guess conflict that goes beyond "jurisdiction." Movement speed penalties if you're in a party above 10? Invisibility/concealment doesn't work on zones with more than 20 PCs? Or if you're in a party above 6?

edit: Xerah's point about most commoners being TN is a really really good point. If you frwiki most Faerunian cities, you will rarely ever see the "common alignment" go solely across the good-spectrum. And even more rarely have it so it is 2 good alignments + 1 neutral.

There are very rarely any "good" cities in Forgotten Realms. Yet, Arelith (or its playerbase) has diluted conflict to a very black/white, good/evil binary.

[The GrumpyCat]

I don't think that's universally true. There are plenty of places in forgotten realms lore where these things would be accepted. It is a problem that we're not allowed this on the surface on Arelith.

I'm not sure what you want out of this?

There are places where it's accepted yes, but they're either very specific culturatly (Mullihorandi) Or else really, really nasty areas (Thay). We have a really nasty area, it's called Andunor.

We could add another 'evil' area to the surface, but when you think about it, I'm not actually sure what it achieves?

Lets say we add an Openly Evil, Undead Necromantic Tolerating City on the Surface. We will call it Mordor.

Huzzah!

Now... I mean... I guess it means that instead of having to hang out with gnolls and stuff, you only have other surfacers to hang out with (presuming, for some reason, that gnolls and so forth arn't allowed there) So there's that but... what else? You've just moved the problem. It's not like the good guys are going to be eager to visit somewhere so utterly, irredemably evil. So your'e still stuck in a social wasteland, only it's sunnier.

I'm not saying more shady/neutral areas are a bad thing. I think they'r ea good thing. And I think that it would be better if, in the case of necromancers/warlocks ect people looked for avenues of interaction that arn't mechanical stop points (exile, death, ect) but I'm unconvinced that making Evil!Ton is neccesarly actually going to help.

There is 0 player agency on any of this. Despite most commoners being TN, they only care that evil isn't being open for some reason. It's a very weird design choice by the DM staff. It used to happen much more in Wharftown when it was historically owned by "bad guys" that the people there would have adjusted, but that was always squashed by the "NPCs leaving". Maybe they are all LG, I don't know, but farmer Jim will get used to seeing guards patrolling with hellhounds if they are there to stop the orcs from ruining his farm.

Yes, there is Sencliff (not on the island and pirate theme), Bante Temple (not really for everyone), and Sib (not on the island or a real settlement) but are issues with those options. There is not a generic "bad guy" surface place that people can hang out in and it's a shame (insert "but wharftown" here). Numerous people from all sides are saying that this is a determinant to the RP culture. (This doesn't have to be a place where mummies, vampires, imps, balors, etc. are hanging out either, since most people would put them away anyway.)

I'm sorry if this is asking a very stupid question. But I feel I need a little clarification to respond.

What exactly are you wanting on the surface?
Are you wanting a... openly evil settlment (e.g. Andunor?)
Are you wanting a... simply shady settlment (e.g. Wharftown)
Are you wanting another neutralish but shady area (E.g. Sibiyad)
Are you wanting another Obviously Evil but none settlment area (e.g... er... Abyssal Citidel I guess? Maybe Shadow Wharftown?

As an aside - from my recollections at least of my own events (I cannot speak for all DM events,) whenever I've removed NPCs in protest (and this I add, is generally to do more with Underdarkers wanting to be allowed into settlments rather than anything else) it's been less about 'WE MUST TAKE A RIGHTOUS STAND AGAINST EVIL' and more 'I'm /not/ living in the same settlment as a fricking /DROW!/ They're monsters! They're going to kill my kids!'

This isn't a 'good' stance this is self preservation.

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

I do wish there was a more concrete setting narrative in some areas to stop the tyranny of one side dominating settlements designed to be variable. One example here is to follow the model of many FR cities and have some form of evil temple in a surface settlement. Perhaps a shrine to Talos in Guldorand, or a church of Talona in Cordor (just examples).

Right now it does feel that 'evil groups running surface settlements' is a fleeting scenario that happens infrequently. I'm not advocating that evil should get to rule more often, but solely that it is very easy for good-aligned PCs to make all settlements a) homogenous and b) comprised of several groups that do not give evil characters/factions room to breathe organically.

I wish it was more commonplace to see more open evil characters allowed to act (within reason) unmolested in settlements without the immediate pariah/exile/40 good-aligned PCs showing up to hoist them up.

This is by no means a condemnation of good-aligned PC players. They are just playing their character(s). The setting does not allow for more organic cohabitation.

[Xerah]

Ideally, a full surface settlement (elections, services, etc.) that is attached to the others by land where people don't go and exile you for RPing in. You won't be chased after for having "evil" summons out (but you will be asked to put them away). It wouldn't be as big of an issue if these places could exist within the current settlement (i.e. Cordor and nGuldorand eventually), but there is no chance of that happening with the way things currently are (this is pretty much what SST has said above). Also to note Cordor does have a Besheba temple, but it's rarely mentioned (good characters also just tend to look at it as a quarter and not a quarter in an evil temple).

Andunor is great at what it does, but it is pretty narrowly focused for everyone. I understand that there were issues with the RP of people in Wharftown before (and it is cool that player actions lead to such a huge module change) but it has lead to where we are now (which I do consider on the negative side of there only really being Surface v. Underdark).

[Rockstar1984]

You have alliances being made and broken; you have racial settlements trying to balance the various needs of their people; you have those like Cordor with radical changes in leadership; sometimes with clearly evil leadership. There is rarely a night that goes by where some underdarker doesn't come up to kill people; or an animator is running around with mummies/vamps.

I have played plenty of good characters, some neutral and even an evil on the surface and never had an issue shaking things (and in one char's case, he tried really hard to not let things shake and ultimately failed).

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.

100% agree. It is even explicitly stated that the Axehold Accords are for mutual protection against the Underdark. Before the Axehold Accords there was the Coalition between Brog, Guld, Bendir, and Myon. I agree that limiting the Underdark's access to the surface would be an immense help. It's not even just raids. There are regularly war parties patrolling the surface that don't technically count as raids but still have the intent of targeting a surface faction/settlement. All of that needs to happen much less so our characters can breathe and think about something else. We would probably see smaller and more realistic alliances.

And the surface does indeed have conflict also as Wandering Poet said. There are plenty of things that happen, mostly smaller things like a couple of characters from two different settlements getting into a fight that their leaders then have to sort out. We don't see as much outright war going on. It does happen though, just infrequently. Settlements on the surface have gone to war a few times in recent years, and many times has tension escalated where they almost went to war. Almost

Wharftown went to war with other settlements, and during the course of those wars there was a lot of espionage and intrigue too that I thought was fun to engage in. This actually brings me to my own point. The last time there was a big war conflict on the surface it ended in a settlement being blown up by a DM plotline. There were reasons for it yes, but it still has had a strong impact regardless of what the reasons were. We have had smaller surface conflicts since but nothing huge or long lasting. Without going into too much specifics there was actually a time when Guldorand leadership was considering going to war with Cordor and Amn and our characters were totally planning out how to do it. The biggest reason they did not declare war was for a very ic argument "Well look what happened to the last settlement that challenged Cordor. We can't risk that happening to us."

Some players were saying earlier in the thread that DM intervention would help shake things up. I argue otherwise. It is because of DM events that some players oocly and characters icly want to avoid conflict. Amn's imperial might feels like the sword of Damocles, as well as the greater implication that the bombardment of Wharftown had. Other events also stack on to this feeling too. If we could be assured that there would be less intervention and especially that our towns won't get blown up, we would see greater conflict and more intrigue amongst surface settlements.

[Bunnysmack]

Somehow make communication via messenger more difficult. I'd say altogether get rid of the GSF:Illusion benefit of sending a speedy on the go. The fact it is so easy and efficient to mobilize disparate forces leads to problems.

A FULL stop of this ability, or the use of speedies, would be a real shame, because they add a lot of flavor to Arelith and if we didn't have them, a lot more meta tells would become absolutely required for people to actually meet up and conduct RP with one another, given the size and variability of Arelith.

That being said, I actually do like the intent behind this idea, and I think it would be really helpful if maybe a mechanic was put in place where every illusion or speedy you send out, makes the next one have a gradually increasing delay on arrival time. That delay wears off over time, like death penalty, for instance, but the more you send out, the more overtaxed the speedy network is or your own magic is, so the message start getting sizeable delays accruing that begin to make it so they arrive as much as ten minutes later than they were sent. This might help reduce the ease of employing the "light the beacons" response.