Eira wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 5:33 am
Kuma wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 4:15 am
Marsi wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 1:31 am
I just want to point out they are roleplayed NPCs, not archons of setting enforcement. They're only really as influential as you let them be.
This mightn't be what you're saying here, but I wanted to echo what Flower Power said earlier -- you don't have to do what DM NPCs tell you.
It does seem confusing to me. It used to be that DM NPCs were obvious, very thinly-veiled batons for enforcing the setting or punishing or correcting a state of play that had gotten out of hand. Nowadays settlement NPCs are more nuanced, morally ambiguous, and creatively written. Which leaves a lot more room for the character to rightfully disagree and work to undermine a DM NPC's decree as if it were any other roleplayed DM plot.
If Vetinari told my government official character to stop doing something, I, the player, would take that to mean cut it out under pain of permadeath. If a sick, old king with a Banite wife told my government official who is a paladin that warlocks and blood-magic dudes were actually cool, I'd take that as an invitation to kick off some revolt RP.
100% this.
I would bring up that it is a legitimate concern where it stands in the staff thinking of this. It has been stated that there is an OOC component to the change, to prevent warlocks and animators from just getting bodied if they stand in the middle of the square and go "HA-HAH I DO FOUL EVIL THINGS".
So when a change is made ingame to reflect a staff decision made out of game, players who would gladly revolt otherwise... honestly that seems like a non-starter. It's like how all drow players know they'll never succeed in actually razing myon to the ground; while some things are made "heck around and find out", there are some truths of the server that are "no matter how hard you try, this won't change". So those drow go into it knowing that it's unlikely they'll ever get close to removing that big ol' elven settlement.
Where does that leave you? It's very hard to want to revolt against something when all you know is that this was a Decision From The High and since it was made for an OOC reason, all that really could be achieved is ruining your character's place in the settlement for good.
I honestly think no mention of staff decision or OOC reason for this change should have been made if players really were encouraged to revolt. And I think that's why the behavior is so awkward about it; people feel like the only way to deal with the City Law That Is Actually Lowkey Server Rule (speaking on perception) is to pretty much ignore things.
No one wants to be that annoying one rocking the boat to no result. After all, it has been said that being mean is a war crime on arelith.
This is a good post.
I like the idea of Cordor being a more neutral environment, I think it's better for all new characters in general and newer players more specifically. But when you make these changes without a story attached to the why, and now a king that outlawed x, y, and z for rl years seemingly changed his mind overnight with an ooc element attached to it, it dissolves the importance of the setting. Players take their cues from the top, and if the top treats the setting like it doesn't matter so will the players.
You have creative people on hand, folks that could come up with something better than this. But even something as simple as this would have been infiintely better:
"King died, the bannite queen made her move, players stopped her and now Amn in the name of stability has named a governor of the area, the morally bankrupt Rupert Modak. He institutes a new Cordor Order, while conceding the chancellor as a representative of the locals still needs to exist."
Players see story movement on a macro level, someone gets to brag about defeating the bannite queen for the next three years, and you accomplished what you set out to do all while coming out of the other end smelling like roses.
Just food for thought for next time.
