Arelith’s (surface) is once again too safe and too divided

[Mr_Rieper]

Wharftown was evil right?
And thats a ruin now.

Nope. It was just taken over by Banites and other neer-do-wells constantly, inevitably went to war with Cordor every time and was just generally treated like a far greater threat than it should have been. It become a yearly cycle for a batch of players to do this. They also could never understand why monsters aren't welcome among humans, and assumed it to just be an alignment thing. It was not.

It was a neutral settlement. In fact it was even founded by a paladin. Go figure. Basically Wharftown is a good example of what happens when a settlement is taken over by evils constantly. There's some expert plan to gain power, when they finally have it they don't know what to do with it and are provoked by everybody around them, it turns into a bitter slogfest where they lose motivation, and some good or neutral character comes along to pick up the pieces so that this can all happen again next year.

Oh, and let's not forget, evils fight each other too. Typically, at least. So it's just a lot of hostility and pvp constantly.

[Nobs]

Im sure many people had fun with it.

[Lady Astray]

Wharftown was evil right?
And thats a ruin now.

Nope. It was just taken over by Banites and other neer-do-wells constantly, inevitably went to war with Cordor every time and was just generally treated like a far greater threat than it should have been. It become a yearly cycle for a batch of players to do this. They also could never understand why monsters aren't welcome among humans, and assumed it to just be an alignment thing. It was not.

It was a neutral settlement. In fact it was even founded by a paladin. Go figure. Basically Wharftown is a good example of what happens when a settlement is taken over by evils constantly. There's some expert plan to gain power, when they finally have it they don't know what to do with it and are provoked by everybody around them, it turns into a bitter slogfest where they lose motivation, and some good or neutral character comes along to pick up the pieces so that this can all happen again next year.

Oh, and let's not forget, evils fight each other too. Typically, at least. So it's just a lot of hostility and pvp constantly.

Quoting this for emphasis. This is exactly what happens when evil characters take over non-evil settlements. Nobs thinks that Anundor should NEVER be taken over by good because the poor monster races would have "no where else to go" but when it comes to traditionally good or neutral surface settlements being taken over the players of characters in those settlements are apparently not "entitled" to the same sort of protection. This is what I mean about double standards. Evil settlements CAN NOT LOSE mechanically speaking, but good and neutral ones can. Personally I think the word "Entitled" is a divisive label used to justify trampling all over other players.

[Mr_Rieper]

Im sure many people had fun with it.

Oh they did. Quite a few. And then many times again, on their yearly alts.



Of course, it was at the expense of everybody else.



Not really an ideal to strive for.

[Nitro]

Quoting this for emphasis. This is exactly what happens when evil characters take over non-evil settlements. Nobs thinks that Anundor should NEVER be taken over by good because the poor monster races would have "no where else to go" but when it comes to traditionally good or neutral surface settlements being taken over the players of characters in those settlements are apparently not "entitled" to the same sort of protection. This is what I mean about double standards. Evil settlements CAN NOT LOSE mechanically speaking, but good and neutral ones can. Personally I think the word "Entitled" is a divisive label used to justify trampling all over other players.

On the other side of the coin, monster characters can't live or spend time in surface settlements no matter who wins the elections or what laws they enact. Does that make it equally unfair to good aligned characters being unable to rule Andunor? No, because both of these make sense in the setting. There is no pure good or pure evil settlement on Arelith since the destruction of Benwick.

I'm honestly not sure what you're arguing for, that your "team good" should be able to eradicate all traces of "team evil" in retaliation for one of the surface cities losing the elections to an evil aligned party? Are you advocating that the only consequence of meaning is to go eye for an eye, settlement for settlement? That surface settlements should be 'safe' just because they've been held by good aligned parties for longer than evil aligned parties have?

[Mr_Rieper]

This is what I mean about double standards. Evil settlements CAN NOT LOSE mechanically speaking, but good and neutral ones can. Personally I think the word "Entitled" is a divisive label used to justify trampling all over other players.

This wasn't really what I was getting at while explaining it. I don't think there is this overt agenda to be forgiving towards evil shenanigans. Remember, Good™ settlements are capable of being destroyed as well. It typically happens when the reputation of the place is so far beyond repair that it's easier to just get rid of it, rather than changing it into something else. That's a vast oversimplification but it's basically true in a technical sense. Of course, the situation with Benwick was planned and roleplayed.

To go back to the original point of the thread, Arelith used to enjoy that frontier country feel. Evil characters are just as capable of creating things as good ones, especially the lawful evil types. Instead they found themselves harassed until they are driven mad and attack everybody around them. Or have to constantly enforce respect through hostile RP. If they did anything else, would they actually be evil? The answer is yes, they could do something else. It doesn't always have to end in a Bad End for the evils, if they are willing to contribute good ideas to the political landscape. The whole nobility thing was originally inspired by evil characters, actually. Very well played evils. The one time in recent memory where Wharftown was properly managed in a way that caused all the other settlements to wonder if they could be doing it better.

We are derailing the thread though. There's clearly more discussion needing to happen about good character dynamics vs evil character dynamics. But it's not something you should approach with a chip on your shoulder. If you're irritated, believe me, I understand. But also believe me when I say that it does nothing good for anyone. It needs to be channeled into something productive.

Requoting a good point in the thread relating to the OP:

What I think that the opening post is trying to adress is that Arelith as an untamed frontier of the Amnian influence-sphere has stopped to hold this "frontier" feeling to it.

For instance there is the threat of constant danger as soon as you go outside the walled part of any settlement, there could be drow raids and dragons and what-not but it's simply not what we are seeing. Taking Bendir Dale for example, it has grown from Fort Bendir (a place under constant siege from all around. Trolls, Orcs, Ogres and Minotaurs) to the farming community of Burrowhome with plenty of houses outlying the walled fort.

For me it's just simply not in line with the rest of the setting which would be untamed frontier. For me it's always been strange that these outlying farms actually manage to survive, considering we have orc raids and a orc fortress but a stonethrow away. Orcs would gladly set every single farmhouse on fire before you can say "safeday", and frankly be able to torch and raid more often then the settlement would be able to rebuild.

This threat, if we are to actually play it as the orcs as a threat, is not currently observed in the design of Burrowhome.

[Nobs]

Wharftown was evil right?
And thats a ruin now.

Nope. It was just taken over by Banites and other neer-do-wells constantly, inevitably went to war with Cordor every time and was just generally treated like a far greater threat than it should have been. It become a yearly cycle for a batch of players to do this. They also could never understand why monsters aren't welcome among humans, and assumed it to just be an alignment thing. It was not.

It was a neutral settlement. In fact it was even founded by a paladin. Go figure. Basically Wharftown is a good example of what happens when a settlement is taken over by evils constantly. There's some expert plan to gain power, when they finally have it they don't know what to do with it and are provoked by everybody around them, it turns into a bitter slogfest where they lose motivation, and some good or neutral character comes along to pick up the pieces so that this can all happen again next year.

Oh, and let's not forget, evils fight each other too. Typically, at least. So it's just a lot of hostility and pvp constantly.

Quoting this for emphasis. This is exactly what happens when evil characters take over non-evil settlements. Nobs thinks that Anundor should NEVER be taken over by good because the poor monster races would have "no where else to go" but when it comes to traditionally good or neutral surface settlements being taken over the players of characters in those settlements are apparently not "entitled" to the same sort of protection. This is what I mean about double standards. Evil settlements CAN NOT LOSE mechanically speaking, but good and neutral ones can. Personally I think the word "Entitled" is a divisive label used to justify trampling all over other players.

You failed your mind reading as its not what i think at all.
Nor do i have any character in the underdark.
Also i did not see the Warftown of old but i hear of it some times and from the little bits i did hear the place sounded like a lot of fun.

But this seems to be going into the same direction as all the forum posts so im dipping out of this so i can avoid most of the mud trowing

[Baseili]

Is the taming of the island a case of good triumphing over evil or is it just difficult to keep the evils of the land noticeable with such a mixture of levels and character power? Is it even possible, or allowed, for evil characters to push back or is it purely in the hands of the dev team to decide?

From my personal experience the only outcome of combined efforts are typically positive effects whereas most projects by evil characters tend to be limited to PvP raids. After all the only evil place on the mainland is the Banite Castle and that is relatively isolated, catering to a specific type of character while the rest are either underground or beyond the seas which seems to further reinforce the "get in, get out" gameplay of raids.

Is it intentional to have waves of "big bads" as opposed to what Grumpycat noted in the more mundane and persistant crooks or other shady types?

[Borin Drakkmurl]

Perhaps one thing that might help is if folk stop limiting being evil to "raids" (the term alone and what it implies on a rp server irritates me), and large scale pvp born out of boredom.

Evil can and has been done successfuly, countless times, without these things being the focus of it, rather just a small but important part that feeds the narrative (remember that odd thing, story?)

This is true for just about any alignment, class, faction, eye color or number of toes characters might have.

It is just that it has been repeated on this thread over and over, as a problem "evil" has on the island right now.

[Subutai]

A couple of separate points I wanted to make here.

First, on the topic of Arelith being an "untamed frontier", the island has been full of people trying to tame that frontier for over 150 years, now. The orcs, goblins, etc., that live near settlements are constantly raided and significantly thinned out. Even the monsters in more far-flung places face frequent attacks. To be perfectly honest, I don't see much IG justification for Arelith continuing to be untamed frontier even after generations of work to tame that frontier. Maybe a better route would be a (somewhat) tamer Arelith. Major roads mostly clear of goblins, orcs, etc., and maybe a few additional areas between settlements and any major monster areas that are too close. Goblins are still around, but have been driven back deep into Bramble Woods. Orcs are still around, but pushed into the mountains, foothills, and more desolate valleys. Arelith should still be dangerous, abut after a century and a half or more, some form of safety seems reasonable.

Second, the issue I've noticed with many people's views on "evil" run settlements is almost a cartoonish type of villainy. People are enslaved and oppressed, skulls are everywhere, and the evil leaders go around talking about how evil they are and how dastardly their plans. On an island like Arelith, it doesn't make any sense that this kind of settlement would stay, or that these kinds of leaders would stay in power. The majority of characters on the surface are either good or neutral, and even neutral characters aren't going to be super jazzed that everyone who doesn't grovel before the Dark Lord is set fire to and crucifixed.

If evil characters want to take over settlements, they need to do it within the confines of what other characters are going to allow, and in a way that they can at least marginally support. Maybe they manipulate some group of righteous paladins into starting a war in the streets of Cordor, then ban paladins and priests of the Triad from the city under by condemning them as violent warmongers who care more about their crusade than about innocent lives. Or maybe the evil characters just run the city normally, but siphon off lots of money, put corrupt lackeys in positions of power, and generally do what they can to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. Not all evil has to be black robes and maniacal laughter.

That's not to say black robes and maniacal laughter are bad, just that it comes with restrictions. If your overtly wicked group is going to run around being vile and dastardly, then there's really not justification for being upset when your plan to take over a settlement and make it a haven for blackguards, necromancers, and fiend worship fails. None of the other characters affected want to see that, and are absolutely going to stop it.

[Lady Astray]

I'm honestly not sure what you're arguing for, that your "team good" should be able to eradicate all traces of "team evil" in retaliation for one of the surface cities losing the elections to an evil aligned party? Are you advocating that the only consequence of meaning is to go eye for an eye, settlement for settlement? That surface settlements should be 'safe' just because they've been held by good aligned parties for longer than evil aligned parties have?

I'm not saying that a bunch of LG paladins should rig elections in evil settlements in retaliation or anything like that. I agree that it would be stupid and would probably ruin the fun of anyone playing an evil character or a monster race. What I'm saying is, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If evil settlements are gonna get OOC protection then good settlements should too.

There is no pure good or pure evil settlement on Arelith since the destruction of Benwick.

This is absurd and you know it. Anundor is an evil settlement. Sencliff is an evil settlement. The Church of Bane is an evil faction that rules over a large swath of land comparable to most settlements. Myon is a racial settlement for elves, most elves lean towards chaotic/good. Brogdenstein is a racial settlement or dwarves. Most dwarves lean towards lawful/good. Bendir Dale is a racial settlement for halflings. Most halflings lean toward a neutral alignment. I have actual sources to back up these claims.

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Elf

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Dwarf

https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Halfling

Most elven players won't want to play in Myon anymore if it is ruled by lawful/evil Banites. Most dwarven players won't want to play in Brogdenstein anymore if it is ruled by chaotic/evil warlocks. Most halfling players won't want to play in Bendir Dale if it is ruled over by cannibalistic ogres who enjoy eating hins. It blows my mind that people even entertain the thought of ruining these settlements for whatever reason. It's not creating a good story or conflict or RP. It is driving players away from the table. It has been tried before and it did not work. Trying the same thing over and over again expecting a different result each time is the definition of insanity. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do study history are doomed to watch others repeat it. If you want to fly in the face of the established lore in order to ruin other people's good time then go ahead and keep rigging elections or trying to convince the DM's to burn down these settlements. You're just gonna end up with everyone else living in Guldorand and resenting you for it.

In the words of Forrest Gump, "And that's all I got to say about that."

[Nitro]

I'm not going to follow deeper into this derail since it's very clear that this is turning into a circular argument. But I will leave as a closing note that if you believe there's been any rigged elections anywhere (since you keep bringing it up) you should report it to the DM's instead of using it to argue on the forums.

[Mr_Rieper]

Astray you need to make a separate thread. What you are discussing isn't the topic. What I was discussing before isn't actually even the topic.

Though my guess is that the potential thread in question would be locked. Because it's one made out of anger and frustration, not inquiry or discussion. Those types of threads don't go anywhere, as we've seen.

Regardless, it would be selfish to continue until this thread is locked, especially when it's off topic.

[Lady Astray]

Astray you need to make a separate thread. What you are discussing isn't the topic. What I was discussing before isn't actually even the topic.

Though my guess is that the potential thread in question would be locked. Because it's one made out of anger and frustration, not inquiry or discussion. Those types of threads don't go anywhere, as we've seen.

Regardless, it would be selfish to continue until this thread is locked, especially when it's off topic.

My entire point is anger and frustration is what happens when you use OOC means to bring about conflict for the sake of conflict at the expense of other players.

I'm not going to follow deeper into this derail since it's very clear that this is turning into a circular argument. But I will leave as a closing note that if you believe there's been any rigged elections anywhere (since you keep bringing it up) you should report it to the DM's instead of using it to argue on the forums.

It's been reported many times but due to DM policy no one is ever going to get any closure on the matter. If people are going to come on here targeting surface settlements acting like these same things should be done again while trying to argue that the UD should be immune to such things they are going to get rebutted.

This thread should get locked anyways because the OP was obviously made out of anger and frustration and a desire to "win" at the expense of others.

Edit: I tried being reasonable and posting sources but if you're gonna really try to argue there are no evil settlements when we have mechanically enforced evil settlements and keep pushing ridiculous double standards I'm gonna have to be blunt and call it like it is. Sorry if that offends you people.

[Mr_Rieper]

This thread should get locked anyways because the OP was obviously made out of anger and frustration and a desire to "win" at the expense of others.

No, it shouldn't. And no, it was not. You are not the arbiter of which threads should be locked, nor should you be.

A couple of separate points I wanted to make here.

First, on the topic of Arelith being an "untamed frontier", the island has been full of people trying to tame that frontier for over 150 years, now. The orcs, goblins, etc., that live near settlements are constantly raided and significantly thinned out. Even the monsters in more far-flung places face frequent attacks. To be perfectly honest, I don't see much IG justification for Arelith continuing to be untamed frontier even after generations of work to tame that frontier. Maybe a better route would be a (somewhat) tamer Arelith. Major roads mostly clear of goblins, orcs, etc., and maybe a few additional areas between settlements and any major monster areas that are too close. Goblins are still around, but have been driven back deep into Bramble Woods. Orcs are still around, but pushed into the mountains, foothills, and more desolate valleys. Arelith should still be dangerous, abut after a century and a half or more, some form of safety seems reasonable.

Second, the issue I've noticed with many people's views on "evil" run settlements is almost a cartoonish type of villainy. People are enslaved and oppressed, skulls are everywhere, and the evil leaders go around talking about how evil they are and how dastardly their plans. On an island like Arelith, it doesn't make any sense that this kind of settlement would stay, or that these kinds of leaders would stay in power. The majority of characters on the surface are either good or neutral, and even neutral characters aren't going to be super jazzed that everyone who doesn't grovel before the Dark Lord is set fire to and crucifixed.

If evil characters want to take over settlements, they need to do it within the confines of what other characters are going to allow, and in a way that they can at least marginally support. Maybe they manipulate some group of righteous paladins into starting a war in the streets of Cordor, then ban paladins and priests of the Triad from the city under by condemning them as violent warmongers who care more about their crusade than about innocent lives. Or maybe the evil characters just run the city normally, but siphon off lots of money, put corrupt lackeys in positions of power, and generally do what they can to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. Not all evil has to be black robes and maniacal laughter.

That's not to say black robes and maniacal laughter are bad, just that it comes with restrictions. If your overtly wicked group is going to run around being vile and dastardly, then there's really not justification for being upset when your plan to take over a settlement and make it a haven for blackguards, necromancers, and fiend worship fails. None of the other characters affected want to see that, and are absolutely going to stop it.

Returning to the last set of good points that was made here. Astray, you and Nitro need to take your discussion elsewhere.

[Basementfellow]

I miss Wharftown.

[JubJub]

The problem is people seem to think too safe means not enough pvp. The UD just became a joke when daily pvping was occurring in the hub, walking in and seeing bashed corpses everywhere. Cordor has had many evil leaders, guards etc. But if one wants to play a bandit killing people along the road and terrorizing towns you need to expect you won't be welcome many places. If you want to openly walk about with undead in tow, you need to expect that some places aren't going to welcome you with open arms. If you're a know associate of drow, you won't be welcome. But being evil on the surface isn't hard, just if you are a murdering psychopath there will be consequences.

[DM Atropos]

Astray, Zavandar, both of you know better.

Stop. Now.

Either contribute, POSITIVELY, or stop posting. This is the only warning either of you will receive.