Conflict and the surface.

[msheeler]

Maybe the people of that settlement should put a more powerful leader in power that will hire more guards or bring help from the outside rather then exile and go back to your tea. Sorry for the speaking bluntly, but again, this setting is a religious/racial warzone and living peaceful undisturbed life on the mountain is unfortunately something to work hard for, not a 'given' in the setting. Or maybe I'm alone in this opinion.

Like I've said, conflict is a health part of the server. However, if you are saying that it is the only type of conflict is PvP and everyone should just accept that and deal with it, then you are absolutely wrong.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

Maybe the people of that settlement should put a more powerful leader in power that will hire more guards or bring help from the outside rather then exile and go back to your tea. Sorry for the speaking bluntly, but again, this setting is a religious/racial warzone and living peaceful undisturbed life on the mountain is unfortunately something to work hard for, not a 'given' in the setting. Or maybe I'm alone in this opinion.

"Religious/racial warzone" is putting it lightly.

I do get how some people are conflict-averse, or conflict-light, and I'll fully confess I struggle on how to roleplay if it is not a conflict-driven or conflict-centric arena. Those have never been my characters, nor ever been my story.

Because I find it incredibly hard to tell those stories when you have a Baatorian occupation of a paladin keep, a Talassian fortress with a demon portal, dragons, slavers, and what have you.

To circle back to your point, Babylon, maybe it is a slippery slope. I do think victims have to play along. However, I often find "punishment" is an area that falls into the domain of those good-aligned factions, and should be their chief responsibility in pushing roleplay forward - it can very easily be squandered. Playing a 'good guy' is a lot harder than playing an 'evil guy.'

Much of the server, and perhaps touching on msheeler's ideas, can be interpreted as a struggle between 'disruption and restoration.'

Evil characters come in, and disrupt the status quo. It's why people like playing villains. A thief, an Infernalist, a warlock - they roll in, and suddenly, things are not as they were.

Oftentimes, good characters are trying to restore to 'things as they were.' This can be really tricky because we don't actually want that - like our characters might want peaceful Arelith, and it might be good for short periods of time, to either onboard new players/wrap up storylines/foster new relationships, and so forth - we actually want things to never be 'as they were.'

So punishment needs to be about advancing storylines. I just think it's simple as that. And like prisoner RP as XXX - the captor has the burden to make roleplay fun.

So do too does those settlement leaders/factions leader who have the fate of player's story in their hands.

[msheeler]

You're not alone. If the people sitting on Guldorand are continually getting beat up, you'd think they'd flee to the protection of a stronger ally- maybe the baddies would occupy Guld for a time but that's just opportunity to kick them out again. Protagonists and antagonists have arcs. Sometimes they lose. Sometimes they win. Trying to maintain a stranglehold on the status quo sounds like it's not a very fun thing for you guys to do.

It's not a matter of them "getting beat up all the time". It's a matter of a culture of thinking that this is the only type of conflict and therefore should be the only thing present on the server.

[Batrachophrenoboocosmomachia]

You're not alone. If the people sitting on Guldorand are continually getting beat up, you'd think they'd flee to the protection of a stronger ally- maybe the baddies would occupy Guld for a time but that's just opportunity to kick them out again. Protagonists and antagonists have arcs. Sometimes they lose. Sometimes they win. Trying to maintain a stranglehold on the status quo sounds like it's not a very fun thing for you guys to do.

It's not a matter of them "getting beat up all the time". It's a matter of a culture of thinking that this is the only type of conflict and therefore should be the only thing present on the server.

Then I'd say coordinating with antagonist players and seeing what other sort of plots they'd like to run you could play along with. Win some lose some. We're not our characters, after all. Fire off some PMs. I used to literally ask people if they wanted to be kidnapped, and they usually accepted, because about half the time I'd get trounced by daring rescue teams.

I don't know if I'd ask people outright if they wanted to be kidnapped today, because a lot of times I don't think protagonist players are even willing to take on even a setback or the risk of loss. But that's a perception thing on my end. A perception easily corrected by being a protagonist player that reaches out and rolls with the punches.

You may find antagonist players roll with the punches too, when they trust it'll be reciprocated.

[Curve]

I want to share my experiences, my response to those experiences and how I see the situation improving.

I prefer the surface to the UD. More often than not I can relate and write better stories from a surface background. I like the dynamics of good and evil within the confines of recognizable morality norms. I like to co-exist with characters who are more in the scale of normality so that when our characters break that normality it feels substantial. With a rare few exceptions I tell the stories of very mundane people who rise to be heroes/villains, the surface is far more conducive to that narrative bend.

I prefer the surface to play heroes and villains because you cross paths with the other in your character's daily life. You are just as likely (in my mind) to cross paths with a paladin as an assassin, an elven archmage as a mercenary, a simple merchant as a diabolical mastermind on the surface. I want my heroes and villains to encounter their opposing ideological counterparts during leveling and I find the possibility of this to be more common on the surface.

Every single villain I make these days is made as an outcast. I do this despite preferring the surface because it has been my experience on the surface that I am unable to engage in hostile/conflictual RP in and around surface settlements without being exiled before I take any meaningful villainous actions. It feels like my roleplay is not wanted in surface settlements. Large groups of outlandishly warded characters have offered my characters little more than uber violent rp for the crimes of having descriptions that read basically "looks mean, has weapons, is probably a villain of some sort" and existing in 'their' settlements. This has happened in or around every single surface settlement since my return to Arelith a few months ago. And I hate to be specific, but Cordor and Guldorand have been horrid offenders, here.

I question if it is reasonable to put this part here, but I will because I think it is a big part of the issue as I see it. I am not on discord but one of the few people I mess with ooc is, and I trust what they tell me. The discord mafia blows up asking "who is playing X" and "is that Y playing X" constantly around my own characters and others who play in a certain way, seeking to push conflict and so on.

I have adjusted my play because of the above. All of my characters have stealth now. I am very careful who I engage in conflictual rp. I focus on small scale stories and small rp scenes rather than take any leadership positions, start factions, or really stick my neck out. If I see a DM event I run the other way. If I see an event happening that involves loads of people I run the other way. I keep my nose down and focus on character development and interactions with the characters I meet who offer fun in whatever form it comes as. I do not expect the server to fall on it's collective knees and beg me to come back to investing in greater story arcs, I'm just putting myself out there.

Solutions are hard. Cultural problems require cultural solutions. There are some things that the DEVs and DMs could do, but these amount to expanding their willingness to step in when people are acting badly. This is not easy. The thing I love the most about Arelith is how the vast amount of stories are player driven, and a heavier hand DM side could shift that. There has been a history of a rare few DMs doing wack things, and people don't easily forget the 1 out of 5000 times and this would increase with more DM enforcement. But, I must say that I prefer taking that chance to allowing this issue to continue unchallenged.

[Ninjimmy]

Maybe the people of that settlement should put a more powerful leader in power that will hire more guards or bring help from the outside rather then exile and go back to your tea. Sorry for the speaking bluntly, but again, this setting is a religious/racial warzone and living peaceful undisturbed life on the mountain is unfortunately something to work hard for, not a 'given' in the setting. Or maybe I'm alone in this opinion.

Is that not pretty much exactly the situation that started this thread? Leaders or settlements were being proactive and working to handling threats either by exile or PvP?

[Xerah]

You may find antagonist players roll with the punches too, when they trust it'll be reciprocated.

This is really the main part of it. When I go into a settlement that has 4 pages of "Banned" [deities/races/people/etc.] that doesn't exactly seem to be a very inclusive place to hang out; it comes across as an overbearing way to make it "my" sandbox and you're only allowed in if you confirm to my views of the culture.

I do totally understand not wanting to be at the front lines of [settlement attacks] multiple times a week as that would get tiring after a while but there are other options from moving to a safer city, making deals, etc. When you just "ban" everything, then it doesn't look like the other side can do anything more than just "attack" since you're not willing to engage in any meaningful RP.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

Like, if you flip it around -

If you're playing an Infernalist who wants to corrupt people, a drow who wants to end all elves, a brigand who wants gold -

You're going to wander empty zones? Of course not. You're going to be glued to where your targets congregate - settlements and factions.

If you want to be left alone in Arelith to do as you like, it is actually really, really easy to do. If you want to have power, influence, a settlement, a quarter, a shop - well, then you're going to have to get involved.

The biggest folly of "social roleplay" and that whole conversation, is that so often those in these scenes want power, influence, and discretion but believe that they must be insulated from other spheres that exert these pressures.

The least disruptive, most stable style of "conflict averse" roleplay is to actually be a traveling minstrel group or a meandering druid. But these characters are rather attracted to pillars of in-game power - and you can't have your cake, and eat it too.

[The GrumpyCat]

Just to clarify, it's not always a matter of the same person doing this every single day, but more like this sort of pattern -

Monday - Pirate Bob and his boys
Tuesday = Outcast Olivia
Wednesday - a couple of Pirate Bob's boys minus Bob
Thursday - Void Cultist Vini
Friday - Nothing
Saturday - Evil Drow Emma and her slave Sal
Sunday - Pirate Bob.

Victims: You know what- Pirate Bob is exiled.
Pirate Bob: What? I've only ever been here twice and it was like 6 days between!
Victims: We're tired of getting PvP'ed every day. This is our tool and we're going to us it.

Ok so maybe this is a really /dumb/ question. And this isn't to counteract anything you've said but...

Why not go to some of these people and go 'Haya. uh, why are you attacking us? Can we do anything to stop you attacking us?'

What's going on to make all these disperate folks attacking you?

Is there something you could do to persuade them not to?

E.g. 'Hello Outcast Olivia - why are you attacking us?' 'Because I am greedy and one one Million Gold!' 'Oh ok here's one million gold but you gotta promise to stop attacking us' 'OK!'

'Oh hello Evil Drow Emma - why are you attacking us?' 'Well because you exiled my buddy Pirate Bob!' 'Oh ok, how about we unexile him, and you both promise not to do any hostility in Bendir.'

I mean, giving into the attackers /Is/ an option. It's one that's rarely done, but it is an option.

Or better yet, persuade the attackers to attack one another! MWAHAHAHA!

[Xerah]

Ok so maybe this is a really /dumb/ question. And this isn't to counteract anything you've said but...

Why not go to some of these people and go 'Haya. uh, why are you attacking us? Can we do anything to stop you attacking us?'

What's going on to make all these disperate folks attacking you?

Is there something you could do to persuade them not to?

E.g. 'Hello Outcast Olivia - why are you attacking us?' 'Because I am greedy and one one Million Gold!' 'Oh ok here's one million gold but you gotta promise to stop attacking us' 'OK!'

'Oh hello Evil Drow Emma - why are you attacking us?' 'Well because you exiled my buddy Pirate Bob!' 'Oh ok, how about we unexile him, and you both promise not to do any hostility in Bendir.'

I mean, giving into the attackers /Is/ an option. It's one that's rarely done, but it is an option.

Or better yet, persuade the attackers to attack one another! MWAHAHAHA!

While I 100% agree with this view, there is a good reason why Guldorand gets attacked the most: it's the easiest target.

You have a nearby portal destination to arrive and launch the attack from; a nearby portal source for a retreat; there are two good options for coming in to attack; there is no way to lock the gates (Bendir); no overwhelming NPC guards (i.e. Brog and Cordor, and even Bendir); and, if the culture is that of conflict avoidant people then it makes a good target for [bad] guys to [do something].

[msheeler]

So, Xerah, it seems this is a circular problem. When you go to town/settlements/what ever, generally you find those long lists because that place has been subjected to attacks on a regular consistent basis by those people over an extended time.

What comes first the chicken or the egg?

Curve, I really empathize with your situation and agree with your assessment that Guldorand and Cordor probably do have some of the most restrictive 'laws' in place now, but just like above, it's most likely that those two have also been the most consistent targets by various groups for a very long time.

Probably the biggest things I would like to know that people who enjoy playing "disrupters" understand are these:
1. You are not the only one playing a character that is wanting to create conflict, realize that the conflict you bring to a settlement may just be one of another dozen going on at that time, and don't be surprised when the reaction you get is one of "lets shut this down before it too gets out of hand"

2. There are lots of types of conflict, and only a small portion of them involve PvP as a main component.

3. If you play obviously / openly evil characters, expect to get treated like evil characters.

4. Not all conflict is evil. You can create conflict with goals and intentions that align with "good".

[Bunnysmack]

You're not alone. If the people sitting on Guldorand are continually getting beat up, you'd think they'd flee to the protection of a stronger ally- maybe the baddies would occupy Guld for a time but that's just opportunity to kick them out again. Protagonists and antagonists have arcs. Sometimes they lose. Sometimes they win. Trying to maintain a stranglehold on the status quo sounds like it's not a very fun thing for you guys to do.

It's not a matter of them "getting beat up all the time". It's a matter of a culture of thinking that this is the only type of conflict and therefore should be the only thing present on the server.

Then I'd say coordinating with antagonist players and seeing what other sort of plots they'd like to run you could play along with. Win some lose some. We're not our characters, after all. Fire off some PMs. I used to literally ask people if they wanted to be kidnapped, and they usually accepted, because about half the time I'd get trounced by daring rescue teams.

I don't know if I'd ask people outright if they wanted to be kidnapped today, because a lot of times I don't think protagonist players are even willing to take on even a setback or the risk of loss. But that's a perception thing on my end. A perception easily corrected by being a protagonist player that reaches out and rolls with the punches.

You may find antagonist players roll with the punches too, when they trust it'll be reciprocated.

This really hits the nail on the head, actually. It takes two to compromise, and compromise has been increasingly more rare lately. I hear the "hero" player argument of wanting alternative means of conflict than just PvP, but I've talked to players that are regularly on the "villain" side of things and their biggest complaint is that they try to offer more dialogue or alternative RP results, but the heroes on the other side of things lens out after one line of dialogue, or rapidly start warding, or send wisps to call in an army of PCs to take on 5 shady people.

If people want alternative results and compromise, they have to be willing to make concessions. Yes, villain players WILL be trigger happy, when you refuse to give them any other options. On the alternative: Usually when I have been gracious to villains that have caught me, it's turned out becoming a fantastic bit of roleplay. The most recent instance of such, didn't even involve PvP at all to accomplish the capture.

[msheeler]

Grumpycat,

We have talked to some of these people OOC and negotiated "lulls" in the action to allow other stories to develop and take shape and some of the players have been more than accommodating.

The biggest problem with paying off "team bad" to end conflict is that it's not "team bad". It's team bad1, team bad2, team bad3, team bad4, . . . team bad12, team bad13 . . .

@bunny - this also is why you see that reaction. Settlements can and do become the target of many separate groups and individuals.

[Batrachophrenoboocosmomachia]

So, Xerah, it seems this is a circular problem. When you go to town/settlements/what ever, generally you find those long lists because that place has been subjected to attacks on a regular consistent basis by those people over an extended time.

I don't think it's a circular problem, I think it's two separate problems. The first one is the de-escalation of the current bad blood. Probably not through forum posts but reaching out personally to players, privately. After that, it's establishing that give and take relation.

Probably the biggest things I would like to know that people who enjoy playing "disrupters" understand are these:
1. You are not the only one playing a character that is wanting to create conflict, realize that the conflict you bring to a settlement may just be one of another dozen going on at that time, and don't be surprised when the reaction you get is one of "lets shut this down before it too gets out of hand"

2. There are lots of types of conflict, and only a small portion of them involve PvP as a main component.

3. If you play obviously / openly evil characters, expect to get treated like evil characters.

4. Not all conflict is evil. You can create conflict with goals and intentions that align with "good".

I like these points and just wanted to quote them. Though it's also worth emphasizing again that it takes two to tango. See comment above.

I like Xerah's and Bunnysmack's posts here, too.

[Aradin]

To add on to msheeler's point about multiple conflict-causers coming into one area simultaneously/sequentially, and particularly because my character IS one of those conflict-causers...

I get the fatigue. Totally. And to be perfectly frank, had I known Guldorand were so heavily targeted, I likely would have approached my plot in a very different way. It's worth saying that without OOC knowledge like reading this forum thread, it can be very difficult for any conflict-causer to know what's going on with their potential victims, especially when - in the case like UDers targeting a surface settlement - they can not actively roleplay and hang around in that environment. How is Evil Jim supposed to know that Sunshine Village gets hit by a different brand of villain every day? I don't think it's reasonable for Evil Jim or his player to have an intricate knowledge of every single conflict that targets the place where he would like to target. I agree with the posts saying that a little OOC communication goes a long way here. I think if you are a settlement/faction/character getting constantly beleaguered and the players, not the characters are getting sick and tired of it all, it's worth reaching out to offer a little perspective. IG if the characters are sick of fighting, you can definitely propose truces, concessions, etc. There are lots of ways to end conflicts that don't involve PVP or exile.

Edit: to respond to "The biggest problem with paying off "team bad" to end conflict is that it's not "team bad". It's team bad1, team bad2, team bad3, team bad4, . . . team bad12, team bad13 . . ."

I wish I had a better answer for this. As others have pointed out, Guldorand is a particularly juicy target, so module design encourages aggression towards it. I'm hopeful this will change when New Guldorand opens.

[DM Rex]

Guldorand's dynamic will likely shift with the coming updates to the city.
And I know everyone's been waiting a long time, but it is getting closer to release.

[Ninjimmy]

I mean, from the sounds of things, it's pretty likely that Guldorand the City will fix a whole BUNCH of the issues we're currently facing just because BG and Amn can force a conflict whenever things get too peaceful.

But it is pretty fascinating to see the different attitudes to conflict we got cropping up and where different people think the lines are.

[CNS]

I think it's also fair to take a look at ourselves when we are running a settlement.

Yes there is a point where there is too much going on. But by saying "this and no more" you're making a choice to shut down everyone who turns up after that point.

It's fair to drop a group an ooc note and say "Hey we have six ongoing conflicts right now, we would love to play with you but can you wait a month or so while a few of these other ones wrap up so we can both enjoy it". I still have enough faith that most players will work with you.

But it's also fair and right to take a look at ourselves when in these positions and realise that this is what settlement leadership or prominence or anything close to it means and involves and if constant conflict is getting too much it might be time to take a break and pass it on.

Similarly if a conflict has gone on for too long, it's fine to again send an ooc note saying that and searching for a way to bring it to a close or a pause for a while.

We should also consider where we can bend our characters and what losses might make more fun. If you're under attack from six factions maybe some want your total destruction or to eat all the babies but maybe two you can live with and could let them win or get what they want, then you're only fighting four.

Ask yourself at what point your character gives up. If the answer is never they will fight to their last breath, that's fine and a choice you can make but at that same time, well you've chosen constant conflict.

[msheeler]

CNS, your post seems to assume that we haven't already been accepting losses and doing everything we can to roll with those.

Yes, it would be nice to "drop a group and ooc note", but this is really the same problem described by Aradin. How do we know who is planning something? Who do we contact?

Also, I would argue, if we are the target, why is it our responsibility to manage who can aggress and how much that each is allowed to aggress? Maybe, just maybe, that should be the aggressor's responsibility?

[-XXX-]

Yeah, it looks like Guldorand has it rough atm. as seems that it's pretty much the only surface settlement without some sort of plot armor.

Than again, we have castles now! *hint, hint*

[Curve]

This is bouncing between generalized and specific. I hope that you are not feeling pounced on, msheeler. Thanks for being willing to engage like you are. And just so you know I am not being specific towards you or Guldorand when I say this:

I think that being a settlement leader or decision maker in a settlement means that you must be held to a higher standard than other players. I don't think getting to lead a settlement is the same as holding a nice quarter or ship, not everyone should get a turn at it. People who are willing and able to deal with the bs in a positive way should be leading settlements. If a settlement leader is in a place where they are not having fun dealing with all of those pressures then it may be time to allow another regime to step in and bring something fresh to the world.

[CNS]

CNS, your post seems to assume that we haven't already been accepting losses and doing everything we can to roll with those.

Yes, it would be nice to "drop a group and ooc note", but this is really the same problem described by Aradin. How do we know who is planning something? Who do we contact?

Also, I would argue, if we are the target, why is it our responsibility to manage who can aggress and how much that each is allowed to aggress? Maybe, just maybe, that should be the aggressor's responsibility?

I'm trying not to comment on your situation specifically and said our to include myself, it's advice I need to follow as much as anyone.

But when you say take the losses what do you mean by that?

Has it ended the conflicts and Guld is such a popular target that as soon as two fall down two more turn up to place it?

I think sometimes we, and again not saying this has any relevance to gulds situation right now, lose some PvP and think thats a loss and everyone should be happy. But usually, and hopefully more often than not, that's not really what any side is interested in or really considers a win or loss. The PvP is a representation of conflict.

Sometimes enemies want to sacrifice all the first born to raise the elder demon of dental work or whatever and yeah unless it's a total surrender that will never happen. But sometimes letting pirates come and trade is enough to secure peace and maybe even an ally against the demon gang.

My post wasn't meant as an admonishment or anything like that but a call for self reflection, have we given ground? Has anything materially changed? Could our characters live with anything that might stem the tide given, at least in this example the town is under siege from many different enemies, exactly the point at which the previously unpalatable should become possible.


Edit- Just read the posts that appeared as I wrote this and my apologies if this felt like a pile on. It wasn't my intention, I know nothing and am not involved in the Gulf situation on either side.

On one hand, it seems like a perfect chance to do some of the things this thread has been crying out for. Pirates might be cut throat mercenaries, but at least they are not trying to blow up Gulf. The banites (if there even are any right now) might not be the nicest people you'd invite into town but they'll follow the laws and are actively interested in preserving society rather than destroying the world.

On the other hand if it is just drow slavers, Kobold slavers, goblin slavers, infernalists, void cultists, necromancer that wants to raise all your loved ones with no wider story then that sucks and it's more than fair to start asking for a break.

[msheeler]

Curve, thank you for your acknowledgement! While I don't feel personally targeted here I do feel that there is a large group of silent people that have not posted here because it is very draining to them, and it is because of, and for them that I wanted to post and keep posting. I want to know that their thoughts are heard as well.

CNS - This is right here:

as soon as two fall down two more turn up to place it

is pretty much why a lot of players are where they are at now. There is not one person, not a small group of people. I keep using the word culture because that is the best way I can describe it. It is the culture of thinking that this (PvP and physical confrontation) is the best way to create story.

It can be a very good and acceptable way but for like the past year, from the perspective I have, it's been the only way that a lot of people have tried to bring story to Guldorand.

[msheeler]

I want to amend that last post a bit. There are some out there that have brought story to Guldorand in other ways and those (big and small) are fantastic.

It's just an overwhelming majority are like that.

[Batrachophrenoboocosmomachia]

Also, I would argue, if we are the target, why is it our responsibility to manage who can aggress and how much that each is allowed to aggress? Maybe, just maybe, that should be the aggressor's responsibility?

You said yourself in a previous post, with the example of Pirate Bob et al, that these are all their own groups, doing their own thing, and it's just adding up.

So if you don't communicate with them, how are they supposed to even know there's an issue? I emphasize again the importance of establishing an understanding for mutual give and take.

If you don't want to communicate with others, then your complaints here are moot, frankly.

Please maybe take my word for it about outreach to antagonists. If they're not reaching out first, then you should.