Is Andunor Needed Anymore

[Watchful Glare]

Having reflected a bit, I find that it is structurally much more difficult to handle conflict within Andunor vs the surface. I believe this is what results in an oscillation between stagnation and tense situations.

Conflict within Andunor is difficult because:
[1] It’s hard to avoid consequences if one remains after a conflict, given how dense the city is and the importance of the hub (which often turns into PvP or “leaving Andunor” as resolution)
[2] It’s the “last chance” place and there are limited RP hubs to go escape to (which can turn “leaving Andunor” to a death / shelving unless one can weasel back into surface, or accept operating outside of RP hubs)

The above means that pushing a conflict narrative within the city often end in a way that feels unfulfilling for at least one group. So, it’s no wonder the UD often defaults to the well-known “unify Andunor against the surface” story, as doing anything else is a high-stakes game which can deeply affect characters and sometimes even cause OOC grudges.

Meanwhile, the surface has none of these issues as there are many escape options that still act as RP hubs (e.g. Andunor, Sencliff, Sibayad, Crow’s Nest, in part Guldorand).

A proper neutral ground (not settlement necessarily) would really help in alleviating this. For this to be effective, it needs to be separate to Andunor and have some NPC enforcement that avoids extreme hostilities (but ideally not so safe that is become a perfect safehaven).

As I mentioned above I think having another UD place aside from Andunor, that follows a similar concept (Perhaps one without 4 districts) would be a more elegant solution. Currently if you are displaced from the UD you have nowhere to go. Specially as a monster race. I don't think another "Shadovar" would be a good idea, though I am uncertain if that is what you meant by 'neutral ground'.

It's one strike and you're out in many cases, so no one wants to rock the boat in any significant way, which leads to stagnation and/or dissatisfaction. Or people curbing their own RP for OOC reasons (Not wanting to banish another character to the shadow realm, not wanting to risk being banished to the shadow realm) because of the implications of such a thing and what becomes an effective soft shelving of the character. Surface as you've said, has those options.

Someone that runs afoul of the Cordor administration can go to say, the Dale. They run afoul of the Dale they can go to Brogedestein. They ran afoul of Brogedestein they can go to Guldorand. They can go to Myon. They can go to Sencliff. A gnoll, a kobold, drow, etc. They don't have any such options.

[Quidix]

Hmm, But there is also the third thing, When you are "barred" from Andunor, You're not just "barred" from Andunor, But from those who are characters you enjoy playing with, ooc friends or even family, A lot happens when you are "Barred", And on the other side, When a friend is "barred" this causes a certain negative vibe by those that stay.

In other words the OOC effect, And I often feel the staff takes this a bit light "It is just a game" but it is basically in child terms "Gerda can't come over to our house because Dina RP'd that she had to leave the party" And often folk will reply with "Roll a new character" But you won't be able to just hop back into that "group vibe" as an RP-wise newcomer.

When it comes to Andunor in RP and PvP, We really need to stop and think "Would it be fun if it happened to me" and if your answer is "no", Reach out to that player (when possible) to ask if it is ok, Or just don't.

I truly think that if we can better ourselves, And keep the fun for all as a united goal, Then this returning drama would be solved without new settlements and other stuff. (I still thing new settlements would be awesome though)

I think we're broadly on the same page. I'm just highlighting this as a design problem, while you take the side of player responsibility.

On design: All other places have a "falling back", but Andunor does not. If Cordor banished someone? No problem! If Bendir banished someone? No problem! If the evil city of Andunor dares banishing someone? No way! Just add a "falling back". Why should the most evil of settlements by design need to play more friendly? It's supposed to be a place of conflict, but as other posters have highlighted in reality is actually more averse to conflict due to the fear of consequences (it's a fine line). "Play nice" all the time can make things rather dull.

On personal responsibility: "what is fun for others" can be a tricky rule - I might think it's fun for the other side, but actually it's not. Why is that?
(1) Let's remember tension can be great driver of RP when done well. Negative OOC player outcomes are very rarely intended, but rather people are trying to generate what they think is interesting RP and they are walking a fine line in doing so. Sometimes people get it wrong.
(2) We all have different versions of truth of what is happening in game - so what appears on one side as "obviously justified", is not by the other side. There's legions of spies, gossipers, murderers and thugs whispering all the time. Enemies are often not who you think they are.
(3) Some people are attached to their characters and others see them as transient - I've done several externally-driven "negative consequences" on my characters that was not where I expected it to go, but I enjoyed the unpredictability as a part of story development and after some time, those are some of my most memorable arcs...
(4) ... indeed, the story of "fighting back" / "reclaiming reputation" / "switching sides" can be very powerful and there are many ways that don't require PvP - someone might love that, someone else might hate that.

In short, it's hard to know what others want without talking to them OOC. So then, why don't we all just talk OOC about it then? We'd (1) spend a lot of time talking OOC instead of IC, and (2) more OOC plotting about the direction. I'm not a fan of either. There's also an issue that probably <1% of players are reading this, so any call for change in player behaviour on this is unlikely to have wide-reaching effect.

All that said, I do agree with this one simple and important point: let's all do our best to have fun, while respecting others.

It's one strike and you're out in many cases, so no one wants to rock the boat in any significant way, which leads to stagnation and/or dissatisfaction. Or people curbing their own RP for OOC reasons (Not wanting to banish another character to the shadow realm, not wanting to risk being banished to the shadow realm) because of the implications of such a thing and what becomes an effective soft shelving of the character. Surface as you've said, has those options.

Someone that runs afoul of the Cordor administration can go to say, the Dale. They run afoul of the Dale they can go to Brogedestein. They ran afoul of Brogedestein they can go to Guldorand. They can go to Myon. They can go to Sencliff. A gnoll, a kobold, drow, etc. They don't have any such options.

We're in full agreement.

[Skibbles]

I think some of this touches on why the UD has wars of annihilation. Like IG mentioned in another thread I can't remember, the UD may be a catalyst to review pvp rules.

So without anywhere to go a simply conflict can escalate into a war for survival. You either win, or you're dead forever - or at least shelved for a long time. This may not actually be the case, but it can and does feel like it sometimes. If it feels like it - thats probably enough to make it worse.

With characters fighting just for the right to roleplay, or merely survive, it can't be too big of a surprise when things get really dirty, personal, and harmful to the spirit.

[-XXX-]

On design: All other places have a "falling back", but Andunor does not. If Cordor banished someone? No problem! If Bendir banished someone? No problem! If the evil city of Andunor dares banishing someone? No way! Just add a "falling back".

IDK, there's generally a great deal of collaboration between factions and settlement leaders on the Surface, so it's not uncommon for characters to get exiled from EVERYWHERE for one reason or another and then being constantly engaged in hostile interactions and PvP no matter where they go.

In many cases the "no problem" falling back option for characters gets narrowed down to packing their things and moving to Andunor, which depending on the character might not even be a viable option after all. For example, an elf or a dwarf might have a hard time going that route because they'd have inevitably ran into some drow or duergar down there. Furthermore the character's player might simply not want to play in the Underdark as a matter of preferrence (in which case they'd probably be better off just rolling and starting over anyway).


Looks like the sailing system offers the best refuge for shunned and persecuted characters ATM. Maybe the Underdark simply needs more ships.

[dominantdrowess]

Underdark needs more places to sail to that aren’t anti-UD like Sibiyad. People would go!

[HeyLadyOfDecay]

I think some of this touches on why the UD has wars of annihilation. Like IG mentioned in another thread I can't remember, the UD may be a catalyst to review pvp rules.

So without anywhere to go a simply conflict can escalate into a war for survival. You either win, or you're dead forever - or at least shelved for a long time. This may not actually be the case, but it can and does feel like it sometimes. If it feels like it - thats probably enough to make it worse.

With characters fighting just for the right to roleplay, or merely survive, it can't be too big of a surprise when things get really dirty, personal, and harmful to the spirit.

Hm, just for Andunor we'd need a DMmentalcare around tbh

[Arienette]

One way or another, I have never been an integral part of this sort of “win or die/roll/shelve” sort of conflict. But I have seen it play out as a bystander, on the message boards, the rumor mill, etc. So maybe im not in the best position to comment on it, but…

What strikes me is that these conflicts sometimes seems to play like “Level 30 Paladin vs Level 15 Necromancer”, just on a grand scale. What I mean is when the Paladin makes a demand of the necromancer (normally to dismiss the undead) and the necromancer says basically “you can’t tell me what to do!” And then starts a fight they can’t hope to win. Rather than just… doing what the Paladin tells them to.

Is it possible that the solution to this Andunor problem is for the losing side to… lose? I mean, apologize profusely. Give up their position, resign their office, become meek and submissive, whatever it is that will appease the other side of the conflict. Agree to serve the winning side, convert to their religion, pay them gold as reparations whatever. There should, in theory, be something that initiated the conflict. If the losing side capitulates completely, would that not solve the issue?

This could be done sincerely, or it could be done cynically and the character/s on the losing side could harbor major resentment and start planning to stab their new overlords in the back as soon as they can gather their strength back again.

[Itikar]

Is it possible that the solution to this Andunor problem is for the losing side to… lose? I mean, apologize profusely. Give up their position, resign their office, become meek and submissive, whatever it is that will appease the other side of the conflict. Agree to serve the winning side, convert to their religion, pay them gold as reparations whatever. There should, in theory, be something that initiated the conflict. If the losing side capitulates completely, would that not solve the issue?

Sometimes it was done succesfully. Most of the times however, what I saw in the past years was that the only condition set was the complete disappearance of such character from the circulation. Once achieved, then the same initiators shifted focus on some other characters or groups of character repeating the same theatrics. I saw many narrative oriented and story-building players leaving Andunor and often the server altogether because of the endless iteration of such behavior.

PvP and conflict can be fun if both parties are open to the mentality that winning is not coupled with having fun and losing is not coupled with not having fun. In my experience, here and elsewhere, this is very rarely the case.

For what regards Andunor, however, those who stated above that removing from the other character the right to exist is usually the goal are right. And there is no way in which an environment in which such attitude is the rule rather than the exception will be anything but a toxic one.

[Arienette]

Well yeah. If that’s the case, there’s not much the losing side can do.

If I ever found myself in that situation, I would try to figure out via IC (or OOC means if necessary) means what my character could do to stop getting squeezed. If the answer is basically “nothing, just delete and go away”, I would report that to DMs and let them handle the “winners”.

[Rei_Jin]

Yes, and that has been done.

It rarely brings the resolution sought after.

[Edens_Fall]

What strikes me is that these conflicts sometimes seems to play like “Level 30 Paladin vs Level 15 Necromancer”, just on a grand scale. What I mean is when the Paladin makes a demand of the necromancer (normally to dismiss the undead) and the necromancer says basically “you can’t tell me what to do!” And then starts a fight they can’t hope to win. Rather than just… doing what the Paladin tells them to.

The issue with this example is that when you do what the "good guys" order and dismiss your summons and wards what happens?

98% of the time they kill you anyway (at least from my experience) for being a monster, master of undead, pacted to vile powers. I can only honestly think of two times "good guys" didn’t kill my PCs outright to instead RP a peace deal etc. Which was surprisingly fun and both times led to great good/evil interaction.

Of course what do you think happened next? That's right! All the other "good guys" on the server declared the one player willing to RP instead of KB as sympathetic to evil and KB them into shelving or giving up the RP.

So the issue I fear is far deeper and more complicated then anyone can address or fix. Sadly I don't have an answer and have over the years become as reluctant to "follow orders" from a group of full warded good guys when they already outnumber one 6 v 1 and demand wards to be dropped for no other reason then an easy/certain kill.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

I find the mentality of this "good guys" clan to be terribly confusing.

Any great narrative is about a plot between protagonists and antagonists. Any great "hero" film, really, is great because it has a great villain. So any "hero" on Arelith should have a pretty important priority of cultivating a strong relationship with an antagonist, because that'll get them to a stronger narrative arc. And you can't cultivate a strong relationship via PvP.

Simultaneously, what is the objective of either side, really? The ultimate destruction of the other side? I think that should remain a puritan aspiration and something debated, in truth.

Light Keep and Wharftown are probably are two examples of what actual destruction look like - and what's unfortunate is that they've largely slipped from public consciousness.

Light Keep was part inside-job, part big evil plot, part a whole bunch of stuff. But the holy keep of paladin smite? It actually fell. Did it achieve what the evil guys intended? Probably in the short term, for sure. It decentralized all LGers, and arguably paved the way for the Banite Church in the north.

Wharftown? I can't speak to that a whole lot.

But these are rare instances. I'd be curious what the enemies of Andunor, from an IC and OOC perspective, think should be the "goal" with Andunor. Because that'll fill in some of the blanks around the broader relationship between good and evil.

Personally, I would hope, the role of "good" is in containment and not destruction. Diplomacy forces dialogue (and roleplay), and the management of factions on either side. Fanatical Black Archers arguing with Triadic knights over peace deals with the formidable houses of Andunor should be something more encouraged, instead - I think we see a lot a lot of black/white as the dominant culture.

[Edens_Fall]

I feel alot of it boils down to the current "win mentality". OOC players know they can't effect the world really, but they can effect other player's via RP gatekeeping and PvP. So that's what is focused on as that's the only real measure of victory players have.

It's not great of course and I have come to terms with it I suppose. We can't control others RP, but we can control our own. Make adjustments. Fall and get back up. Try new approaches. Get KB, step back, try another plot. These are what we can do until a time comes that alters the balance of what the population considers a "win".

I know many still fear the old war system days, but I do think an updated system that allows for conflict with consequences would be a welcomed change to the current meta.

[Tesla420]

A lot of the server I feel yearns for a place where conflict is acceptable. That is why I think the sea update was so successful.

When people go sailing and they run into pirates, it is less of an OOC mess because that is what they signed up for.

I'd love to see an island or spot with excellent questing content, loot, even quarters. But the isle comes with the expectation that you may run into pvp.

[Xerah]

Expanding on that...It would be cool if there were various islands that different factions could take over. It would be a bit of a shame that it's gated behind sailing, but it would give a very good way to have things change on the server.

How this actually works mechanically is a whole other story, but I think the basis of an idea is there.

[Edens_Fall]

Expanding on that...It would be cool if there were various islands that different factions could take over. It would be a bit of a shame that it's gated behind sailing, but it would give a very good way to have things change on the server.

How this actually works mechanically is a whole other story, but I think the basis of an idea is there.

Huh . . . That is a pretty neat idea.

[xf1313]

What strikes me is that these conflicts sometimes seems to play like “Level 30 Paladin vs Level 15 Necromancer”, just on a grand scale. What I mean is when the Paladin makes a demand of the necromancer (normally to dismiss the undead) and the necromancer says basically “you can’t tell me what to do!” And then starts a fight they can’t hope to win. Rather than just… doing what the Paladin tells them to.

The issue with this example is that when you do what the "good guys" order and dismiss your summons and wards what happens?

98% of the time they kill you anyway (at least from my experience) for being a monster, master of undead, pacted to vile powers. I can only honestly think of two times "good guys" didn’t kill my PCs outright to instead RP a peace deal etc. Which was surprisingly fun and both times led to great good/evil interaction.

Of course what do you think happened next? That's right! All the other "good guys" on the server declared the one player willing to RP instead of KB as sympathetic to evil and KB them into shelving or giving up the RP.

So the issue I fear is far deeper and more complicated then anyone can address or fix. Sadly I don't have an answer and have over the years become as reluctant to "follow orders" from a group of full warded good guys when they already outnumber one 6 v 1 and demand wards to be dropped for no other reason then an easy/certain kill.

That is just...horrible. ‘Do something or die’ has been my most hated word, it doesn’t just feels like bullying, almost 0 fun interesting outcome can spring from it. I’ve witnessed a few times, the good side demanded unsummon, the evil guys did it, awkward silences and they just part ways...Or kill bashing because the evil guys were speaking and didn’t do what they say immediately.

What you have mentioned is 1000% worse. Let’s kill someone who is not TRUE good... almost a fantasy witch hunt.

At the moment, thou surface Arelith is never vacant of evil interactions, the evil guys lack a base. Whatever happen to them has 0 consequence and 0 impact to IG society. Subsequently there is no reason for good forces to hesitate, in fear of bring war to their church/whatever they care about. In fantasy settings, the evil side almost always have a strong background so they are tolerated. And slaying some archpriests of Umberlee or Talona on sight? Good gracious, be prepared for some sinked ships or disease outbreak.

A evil/monstrous town on surface that is not senciff, I’d always love to see that, and hopefully, divine interventions (this might need to be approved by do)

[Seven Sons of Sin]

Expanding on that...It would be cool if there were various islands that different factions could take over. It would be a bit of a shame that it's gated behind sailing, but it would give a very good way to have things change on the server.

How this actually works mechanically is a whole other story, but I think the basis of an idea is there.

While I appreciate this in principle, what it really risks doing is pushing conflict out of the rich tapestry of the server towards "PvP-geared zones."

No where should be actually safe. Conflict should be allowed anywhere. I'd rather see factions being able to take over the actual island, and not having to create special spaces for this just to occur.

[Xerah]

I don’t think it does that, it just give something actually meaningful to fight over. All the other areas in the server are still pvp zones

[Seven Sons of Sin]

If fighting over an island becomes more meaningful than fighting over like Cordor, then I'm super hesitant. We should be pushing for a day when Andunor can make Cordor a puppet state, not having two navies engage in some twinkling match over holding newly added zones.

[xanrael]

Personally I like the idea of capture-able areas that are also not starting zones.

Another way to do it would be create a dungeon on the mainland that you can subjugate and "own" for a set time. Once you "own" it you're added to that faction so the denizens are friendly. Ideally have some spawn choice so a necromancer could fill it with undead, a transmuter constructs, a kobold tribe, etc.

So if someone comes to attack and you're there then you have NPC allies, and even if you're not occupying that area people can "attack" it with each successful clear/boss kill (with some cooldown) decreasing the spawn strength until it hits zero and can be taken over by another.

My reasoning for this approach is even the people that don't own it can still interact with the area and it still feels occupied when the "owners" are offline. It's not a settlement so it wouldn't replace the conflict around the cities.

[Rei_Jin]

Things I would love to see as capturable and usable until server reset:
NPC Ships: Cripple one, clear it, and you can pay to have it towed to port, repaired, and then you can use it until server reset.
Abandoned properties in the wilds (not actual properties, but locations that could theoretically be fixed up and used as a property: Clear it, claim it (menu interaction?) and you can use it as a base for a bit. Good for resting in the middle of a long trip?

Things I would love to see as capturable and usable for a RL week:
PC Ships: Cripple one, defeat or make their crew run off (or make them your prisoners), and you can use the ship for a RL week, until the authorities intervene to see it returned to the owners (Only the deck though, the rest is locked off for OOC reasons)
Biddable properties: Raid rules would apply, but if you can defeat the defenders, you get control of it for a week (all storage and quarters are locked off though, for OOC reasons)

[Slapstick]

Personally I like the idea of capture-able areas that are also not starting zones.

Another way to do it would be create a dungeon on the mainland that you can subjugate and "own" for a set time. Once you "own" it you're added to that faction so the denizens are friendly. Ideally have some spawn choice so a necromancer could fill it with undead, a transmuter constructs, a kobold tribe, etc.

So if someone comes to attack and you're there then you have NPC allies, and even if you're not occupying that area people can "attack" it with each successful clear/boss kill (with some cooldown) decreasing the spawn strength until it hits zero and can be taken over by another.

My reasoning for this approach is even the people that don't own it can still interact with the area and it still feels occupied when the "owners" are offline. It's not a settlement so it wouldn't replace the conflict around the cities.

This idea is pretty cool and probably deserves it's own thread. I can envisage multiple types of zones that are of thematic value to certain characters. A temple, a wizards tower, a castle, etc. If these are held by a faction they give some minor but suitable benefit. There are thematicly correct NPC's that serves as a first line of defense in case of an attack. Maybe the owner can even chose between good/evil NPC's or other "Stronghold Streams".

Mounting an attack on such a zone should require a lot of resources. So it could cost a lot of gold, or whatever. This will allow spies to try to figure out which faction might be amassing resources to attack somewhere, and which place. It would also allow patrons to fund attacks from the shadows without being directly culpable. Once an attack is "launched" it could come with a 24-48 hour warning as the assault "begins", and it could happen in a given time interval, so as to avoid the whole "quick, the faction is logged off, let's raid them" thing. If the faction is hard pressed for fielding a full defense, they can pay characters to participate as retainers or mercenaries.

In order to avoid server-wide lag they could be on their own pvp-servers. Maybe there needs to be minimum/maximum participants on each side. I'd love to see the Church of Umberlee attacking a temple some goodie-two-shoes faction with a horde of drowned ones.

Structured PvP is a lot of fun.

[Arienette]

What strikes me is that these conflicts sometimes seems to play like “Level 30 Paladin vs Level 15 Necromancer”, just on a grand scale. What I mean is when the Paladin makes a demand of the necromancer (normally to dismiss the undead) and the necromancer says basically “you can’t tell me what to do!” And then starts a fight they can’t hope to win. Rather than just… doing what the Paladin tells them to.

The issue with this example is that when you do what the "good guys" order and dismiss your summons and wards what happens?

98% of the time they kill you anyway (at least from my experience) for being a monster, master of undead, pacted to vile powers. I can only honestly think of two times "good guys" didn’t kill my PCs outright to instead RP a peace deal etc. Which was surprisingly fun and both times led to great good/evil interaction.

Of course what do you think happened next? That's right! All the other "good guys" on the server declared the one player willing to RP instead of KB as sympathetic to evil and KB them into shelving or giving up the RP.

So the issue I fear is far deeper and more complicated then anyone can address or fix. Sadly I don't have an answer and have over the years become as reluctant to "follow orders" from a group of full warded good guys when they already outnumber one 6 v 1 and demand wards to be dropped for no other reason then an easy/certain kill.

That is just...horrible. ‘Do something or die’ has been my most hated word, it doesn’t just feels like bullying, almost 0 fun interesting outcome can spring from it. I’ve witnessed a few times, the good side demanded unsummon, the evil guys did it, awkward silences and they just part ways...Or kill bashing because the evil guys were speaking and didn’t do what they say immediately.

What you have mentioned is 1000% worse. Let’s kill someone who is not TRUE good... almost a fantasy witch hunt.

At the moment, thou surface Arelith is never vacant of evil interactions, the evil guys lack a base. Whatever happen to them has 0 consequence and 0 impact to IG society. Subsequently there is no reason for good forces to hesitate, in fear of bring war to their church/whatever they care about. In fantasy settings, the evil side almost always have a strong background so they are tolerated. And slaying some archpriests of Umberlee or Talona on sight? Good gracious, be prepared for some sinked ships or disease outbreak.

A evil/monstrous town on surface that is not senciff, I’d always love to see that, and hopefully, divine interventions (this might need to be approved by do)

Not sure where/how alignment comes into it.

A large majority of conflict RP and PvP comes from "do/dont do this or I will harm you", and this is totally natural and expected.

Leave or die.
Become my prisoner or die.
Free the prisoner or die.
Give me your valuables or die.
Stop trying to rob me or die.
Stop running past me to ninja the loot or die.
Unsummon the thing or die.
Get your hand out of my pocket or die.
Ad nauseum

These are all valid sources of conflict and PvP. They are simple, small, and usually dont lead to some high quality story arch, but they are totally valid. The same concept applies to bigger and more meaningful situations, though. The big problems happen when either the losing side of these conflicts REFUSE to give any ground, or when the winning side REFUSES to have any grace in victory.

Say, Gang of Thugs controls the Slum. Crew of Thieves wants to muscle in on this territory. Crew of Thieves is the "stronger" of the two. They give Gang of Thugs the opportunity to give up control of the Slum. Gang of Thugs refuses, turf war starts. Crew of Thieves, being the stronger faction, lays the smack down with a couple of decisive victories. Gang of Thugs refuses to bend. Crew of Thieves might even offer to absorb the members of Gang of Thugs into their crew as subordinate members.

At this point, in my personal opinion, Gang of Thugs "should" admit defeat. Take the offer to be absorbed into Crew of Thieves, or cede the issue altogether by ceasing their operations in the hypothetical Slum. Also, it is my opinion that Crew of Thieves also has a responsibility to be gracious victors and for example, not continue to hunt down and kill the defeated enemy just because they can.

The major problems seem to stem from one of the two of the following, or perhaps both:

1. The "losing" side refuses to give any ground no matter how frequently or how severely they get beaten.
2. The "winning" side is unreasonable. They make unreasonable demands. Reasonable would be "stop operating as a crew in the Slum, its ours now". Unreasonable would be "Leave Andunor". The very most unreasonable thing, and I think a certain rulebreak, is for the "winning" side to keep up the pressure in the hopes the other side will roll/shelf/quit. Thats toxic and bullying and Not Nice.

This is a player issue, not an alignment or Andunor issue. Step one is to hope our fellow players can be reasonable people and play their characters in a reasonable way. If that fails, we should alert DM staff IMO.

[Retratserif]

Is it possible that the solution to this Andunor problem is for the losing side to… lose? I mean, apologize profusely. Give up their position, resign their office, become meek and submissive, whatever it is that will appease the other side of the conflict. Agree to serve the winning side, convert to their religion, pay them gold as reparations whatever. There should, in theory, be something that initiated the conflict. If the losing side capitulates completely, would that not solve the issue?

Sometimes it was done successfully. Most of the times however, what I saw in the past years was that the only condition set was the complete disappearance of such character from the circulation. Once achieved, then the same initiators shifted focus on some other characters or groups of character repeating the same theatrics. I saw many narrative oriented and story-building players leaving Andunor and often the server altogether because of the endless iteration of such behavior.

PvP and conflict can be fun if both parties are open to the mentality that winning is not coupled with having fun and losing is not coupled with not having fun. In my experience, here and elsewhere, this is very rarely the case.

For what regards Andunor, however, those who stated above that removing from the other character the right to exist is usually the goal are right. And there is no way in which an environment in which such attitude is the rule rather than the exception will be anything but a toxic one.

Currently it seems conflict RP/PvP is brewed up behind closed doors. RP'ed between a characters/factions, where the soon to be victim has not a single clue about it. Then, no form of contact about the reason this, just a huge push for forced content. Leaving no way out.

Yes, from my experience here, over the last year, fun conflict is very rare. Sadly, pretty much every time I had tried to resolve issues, on many characters it only furthered the ongoing issues... even if the RP stated otherwise. I can also say, I know more that have quit because of this lack of quality rp, respect, fun, and support over ongoing issues. Where one side may RP it, with their friends, but not with whom they wish to oppose. And when any form of communication is attempted, its either ignored, sidestepped, or met with pvp.

On two of my characters... I most definitely felt pushed out, with total lack of RP or reason. To the point I have zero faith in the district voting system, law, eviction, exile, and over all management of the UD surrounding Andunor. At no point I feel the average player has any input to the outcome of what they can do without siding with a faction of sorts. Its very binary. And leaves no room for character development. Even less room to follow any non dramatic storyline.

PvP events in the UD have been fun. But all of the other PvP I had been part of, was totally unavoidable and mostly petty. The reoccurrence of pvp promoted or supported from the same group, even further reinforces that this is currently allowed. As it seems to be a signature move now. Being that it is allowed, and still forces many to give up "Shelve:, roll character, or just simply leave the server still does pose an issue.

This all has mostly taken a toll on my passion. When I first came to this server... I totally was drawn in by the characters and RP. As time went on... the issues became more and more obvious. Now... I am very cautious of whom I RP with, and even more so of any faction association. I get that it is the UD. But when a large groups or highly influenced players... want something. Its going to happen. Totally ruining anything in the way.

That, is what I think hurts the UD the most.

More moderation of power groups. More options for properties, that are not associated with districts. Free access to temples without fear of PvP or exiles limitations. Separation of Portals/Writs/Messengers/Drama Boards.

I mean, I got killed once, because I asked for some room, to get to the messenger. You can listen to someone writing a message, posting on the board, and still be in ear shot of the main portal. Kind of a recipe for disaster.

Also, some clarification of what a district leader is... and what the limits of power in that area are.
There are area's completely banned from slaves.

For some reason, its been said IG that they rule the city... not just the district they are voted in on. Which totally makes it hard to avoid conflict when others go along with this.