Arelith

Hey there,

[snip]

I just wanted to say that this is a step in the right direction for players like me who want a higher standard for RP in that regard. Especially when every mage has a pocket dragon knight and with a high-fantasy setting such as Arelith, it's good that even seemingly godlike characters like those existing on this server can be brought back to reality. To have them remember that not only they alone matter but that there's a whole server around them and sometimes they have to adapt to the world rather than the other way around.

Just my few cents on the Server Owner's post. Looking forward to the Guldorand launch event!

Players tend to think of level 30 as being some sort of megagod capable of handling a city or army alone and that's, honestly, a hell of an immersion breaker for me. Epic on Arelith doesn't mean all that much in comparison to the wider FR narrative. So it's nice to see that the setting is going to be enforced. (If you have problems with not engaging in excessive pvp in starter cities, I promise the server's policies isn't the problem)

It's not what people want to hear, but sometimes a player and a server aren't going to be a match, and trying to force either side to confirm is just going to be a headache for everyone.

It is a good reminder to players that we are in a multi-player setting and your agency of the overarching story extends only so far as your character.

I've edited the OP's post, and just as a general word of caution. I realize the announcement is strongly worded, but there is no need to use this as a launching point to be passive aggressive to other players or the server in general.

I'm honestly a little hesitant to post this, but I'm going to go ahead anyway.

I very firmly agree we cannot play our characters as if the facts of their environment do not exist. Everything our characters do is framed within that particular context. Our characters might like Cordor being a monarchy, or they might hate it and rail against it - And live with the in-character consequences of those actions... But they cannot blithely ignore it when the player decides they don't like it on an ooc level. Those things exist to give us something to work with - a set of stimulus from which we can create.

That's fine.

However, there is no problem with presenting an entirely ooc critique of those systems, structures and setting-facts. If a player believes that the way something that has been developed is harmful, or inhibiting in a negative manner, or whatever it may be... Presenting that criticism can be productive and useful.

It is important that we don't confuse our IC responses to the facts of the environment and our OOC opinion of it how it helps or hinders the narrative.


The latter part of Irongron's post seems to imply that feedback and criticism given on creative choices will be poorly received, and I would suggest this probably isn't the best message to send. Yes, of course the final say on setting-level decision making will always ultimately reside with the creators, but to phrase a message in a manner that discourages the input of the people who play within that environment is probably quite ill advised.

Responsibility for how criticism is given is a reciprocal thing - The creators need to be open to recieve that criticism and feedback, and take the time to consider its value and worth. The players need to ensure they deliver their criticism with the intention of being helpful, and must never confuse their characters' agendas with their own when giving feedback on the facts of the setting, and never ignore the the setting on an in-character level.

Either party in that relationship taking an angrily adversarial or dismissive stance, is only going to end poorly for the community.

My only main concern is how Arelith's setting information will be stored and conveyed.

We have always approached in-game knowledge with a degree of subjectivity and "find out in-game", but this has largely stemmed from the availability and accessibility of frwiki, and 3.5 knowledge. Much of Arelith's heyday came out before 5th Edition, where the Spellplague was almost uniformly criticised and many were happy to prop up the 3.5 landscape.

3.0/3.5 is basically 20 years old now.

The "Arelith Setting" is distinct and apart from the Forgotten Realms now, and I think we have to look really hard at the "find out IG" mantra.

The expansion and recreation of many areas of the server does warrant some kind of "Irongron Manifesto" that I really would appreciate.

Because, in truth, I think I might what *know* what Irongron (our DM, basically) wants. But I only truly know when I basically do something wrong.

I don't like punitive approaches to anything. I'd really like a hard-set 1 pager about what is Arelith's new setting, outline some expectations, and really, what irongron would like to see from players in terms of character narrative that fits the setting.

Arelith isn't the Forgotten Realms anymore. And to be accessible and transparent, we should really just be a lot a more forthright in developing a coherent campaign setting doc.

It's absolutly true that the team should, can and does listen to player critisism and feedback.

With that being said sometimes things come up (and to be fair I think they tend to be pretty obvious when they do come up - though I may be wrong) where the answer will be, 'I'm sorry - but this isn't changing.'

And the important thing to note - is that sometimes these things arn't 'bad' or 'good' things. They just arn't suitable for /arelith/.

There's nothing wrong with a Adult rated server. But that's not Arelith.
There's nothing wrong with a server where monster races and drow can intermingle with civlised races. But that's not Arelith.
There's nothing wrong with servers with a harsh permadeath system - But that's not Arelith
There's nothing wrong with servers with vastly different settings - But that's not Arelith.

That's not the direction Irongron wants to take the server in.

And again there's nothing wrong, I don't think, with some good, constructive and reasonable critisism, suggestion and discussion. However at the end of the day, there will be things which, no matter how you feel, that arn't going to change.

And if that means 'voting with your feet' then, honestly? That's not a bad thing.

This may sound crazy, but I think what the DM team cares about the most is that you guys all have fun! And if that means that you have to leave the server to do that, to find your fun elsewhere? Then that's... probably the right decision!

I 100% absolutely and in full totality support everything said in Ironboss' post.

The bottom line is that it's his and the rest of the staff's server, they can do what they want with it, and like the directors of a film or play, take it to where they want to go.

I'm curious as to what sparked the need for this type of message in the first place. Are NPCs being ignored too much? Are players demanding for Arelith to go in a certain direction based on what they want? Or is it simply being reiterated with the launch of a giant new chapter in Arelith's content?

I greatly appreciate the push for new content and stories, especially those lead by the staff and/or NPCs. It's not always easy for the players to constantly come up with their own plots in a 24/7 active PW. Things get dry, so having NPCs leading settlements and a larger direction for server to go in aids this greatly. However, these things ought to be done with more buildup. The change of leadership in the Arcane Tower, for example, was done extremely abruptly, seemingly overnight, and - Correct me if I'm wrong - Without an announcement. Now, because of my stated support in the opening sentence, I will of course respect this choice and RP alongside it accordingly, which I have been doing, and it's been perfectly enjoyable and the new plots and interactions with other players and DMs has been quite simply fun - Which is the entire point! But I think more build-up for these types of changes would benefit the transition.

Currently that's being done perfectly well with the opening of the Fortress City. We're getting news articles, new NPC interactions, new lore, plots, and so forth. If we as the players are expected to accept and roleplay the direction of the server accordingly, it would seem fair to desire a well constructed timeline of events to put this direction in place.

If not? Well, that's fine. We get to play Arelith for free and enjoy the benefits of an insanely well developed PW that puts the features of modern games to shame in many places. So there's no bellyaching on my end, but I would like to share some simple feedback.

I digress to say in short that I fully support this post, all of the staff, and the direction of Arelith, even if things might seem rushed sometimes in my own opinion. I truly look forward to what's coming next!

I agree quite a bit with what Seven has posted. There are a great deal of divergences from what is Forgotten Realms now; this information exists, and can be found, but it is difficult for someone who is new to DND or NWN, or someone whose only experience with DND is now fifth edition.

Some form of "cheat sheet" that's easily accessible for new players joining the server would go a long way.

Going further, the server itself is a lot more complex than it used to be. There's a lot of history, and on the whole the server's world-building narrative has gone from something that's relatively self-contained to something that draws from other parts of the setting; see Cordor's new, far more outright & bold relationship with Amn. Prior to Wharftown's destruction, you really didn't see such things as often. New Guldorand is coming now, and it has a great deal of "outside" influence, in a very active fashion; Evermeet is building parts of the city, there are agents of the Iron Throne, from the Red Wizards, so on and so forth. This even goes to Andunor, with the relatively recent addition of the Greyport district, this being influence from the canonical Gracklstugh.

If Arelith has a place in the wider world of Forgotten Realms that isn't quite so handwaved anymore, I feel like that place ought to be more clearly defined. As well, that place should be clearly defined not just through exploring the game world itself, but before you enter the game world -- questions like "what is Arelith, and why would someone come to it?" should be a question a new player can see the answer to without asking people through direct channels such as the Discord chat or the forums, and instead can simply learn before logging in at all.

It feels like the only reason I know about Arelith's setting in even the broad strokes is through having played on it so long. I can't imagine trying to get into it as a new player. When I started, 5E was very new and not nearly as popular as it is now, not to mention Forgotten Realms hadn't quite caught up to the shift in its own lore, so all one really had to do was go back to 4E, something I did anyway because I (like most people) didn't like the Spellplague. Things are different now: the server's narrative has changed quite a lot, DND has changed quite a lot, and even NWN itself has changed quite a lot now with Enhanced Edition.

Times have changed greatly, to put it short, so I think it's only fair that Arelith should change too with how it accessibly it presents itself.

Taking from Strong Yeet's idea, a guide is a good consideration for those completely unfamiliar with Arelith and it's various racial/cultural/roleplay nuances.

Would a webpage with a written document be better? Short youtube clips?

DM Rex wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:27 am Taking from Strong Yeet's idea, a guide is a good consideration for those completely unfamiliar with Arelith and it's various racial/cultural/roleplay nuances.

Would a webpage with a written document be better? Short youtube clips?

I'd vote on a writen page, even if the concept of youtube clips, perhaps with some of the comissioned art that has been added over recent years as a background, does sound like a good idea.

There's a channel that is, in someways, a whole lot more interesting to engage with than FRwiki: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkT1vY ... CO6B34wuVw

Something along those lines, for Arelith, could help a lot of people and help spread the word about the server.


As for the written version, it could well be developed as if it were a handout you'd give to your players before you were about to DM an actual pen and paper game.

The utility of such a thing could easily be seen in stuff like making it clear, once and for all, that Andunor/Devil's Table is not Menzonberran, for instance.

Or that Mystra ain't dead.

Or how, on average, the population tends to be distributed among the many playable races.

Or, if you'd want to make it meatier and more into the nitty gritty, how Arelith orogs tend to be more like the product of a conan the barbarian monarchical comunist spartan glory seeking community, than the barely more than tribal version of 5e.

Drowboy wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 9:54 pm Players tend to think of level 30 as being some sort of megagod capable of handling a city or army alone and that's, honestly, a hell of an immersion breaker for me. Epic on Arelith doesn't mean all that much in comparison to the wider FR narrative. So it's nice to see that the setting is going to be enforced. (If you have problems with not engaging in excessive pvp in starter cities, I promise the server's policies isn't the problem)

It's not what people want to hear, but sometimes a player and a server aren't going to be a match, and trying to force either side to confirm is just going to be a headache for everyone.

Just saw this and had to mention. A level 30 in DnD 3.5 would essentially be capable of fighting armies. Gods in 3.5 are level 40 to 60. A person being level 30 in DnD would be rare. So Epic on Arelith would mean a lot in comparison to the wider FR narrative.

I wouldn't consider arelith 30s on par with 3.x 30s for a number of reasons. 15 or so maybe.

Drowboy wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:48 am I wouldn't consider arelith 30s on par with 3.x 30s for a number of reasons. 15 or so maybe.

This is a good point and I've considered before posting a 'divide by 3' rule, yo determine one's comparable level to the wider setting.

Quite a few, when making their servers, look to the realms lore and set the level cap low, because anything else would basically be absurd. I was asked for advice on this issue just a few weeks ago by a new server.

My view is that actual game content trumps realism. Nwn is a limited toolbox, and shutting ourselves out of 90% of game features in pursuit of 'realism' I find kind of nutty. So yeah, players reach a high level, but so do monsters, even a simple goblin can be level 15+.

As for my post, I said it wasnt a discussion, because I really don't want one on this issue. It should be pretty clear. A lot of the issues we have on this server stem from players resenting the restrictions that come with playing in an actual setting, but it is that setting which allows stories to be told.

Wharftown was a great example of what I'm talking about. In the weeks leading up to its removal the players (not chatacters) insisted that the monster policy shouldn't apply to them, and despite server guidelines repeately tried to pass laws insisting it was fine, and bringing monsters into town. They knew, full well, this was against server policy, but not approving of it treated that aspect of the server with disdain, and encouraged others to do the same.

While, of course, waging a perpetual war on Cordor, despite it being a city and their being a small village. I heard two common refrains at this time - first that 'its fine because our characters alone are strong enough to kill everyone in that city', and second 'it's unfair that Cordor has such an advantage' (plot armour).

That is, of course though, exactly what having a setting entails. You couldn't go play on a LOTR server and immediately object that its unfair that Sauron has all the armies.

Quite honestly I find it frustrating when I make a world only to find some players are fine with just ignoring the bits they don't like (peacekeepers) or insist I change the parts they don't approve of.

The NPCs may simply be the window dressing here, but they do represent the larger world, the setting we must all adhere to. As Grumpy said, it's fine to criticize if you want, but to subvert, stonewall or actively attempt to sabotage aspects you might not approve of will not fly.

Do we need some master document explaining all this? Personally I don't think so; it's not exactly rocket science.

Perhaps I was unclear, Iron. What I would like to see a "master document" on is not so much notions like 'do not kill people in front of Sgt. Reginalli,' since like you said these things are pretty obvious. I more mean the setting itself, things like 'the Iron Throne does X things in Y part of Guldorand' or 'Gracklstugh did Z thing in Andunor during year A.'

A new PC might come to Andunor or Guldorand or Cordor, having heard about these events during their time on mainland Faerun -- but a perfectly new player has no idea of these things; all of this information can be gained through channels that exist exclusively in-game. So, a veteran player can build parts of his character off the bits of the server's setting, but a new player cannot. A simple example would be something like an elf scholar coming to Arelith because he wanted to see one of the world's last functioning high-magic mythals.

This quibble might seem minor to some, but it strikes me as particularly important considering, like Seven says, how starkly divergent Arelith is now from the "current generation" of DND. The first inklings of this I've seen already, actually; some weeks ago I recall reading in the server's official Discord a new player's series of questions about things relating to the many-times aforementioned server setting, one most memorable to me being "why would a character arrive on Arelith?"

Eventually he was given an answer by various helpful folks, but it sticks out in my mind as an example of what I mean. Arelith's lore is an archaic form of "proper" D&D/Forgotten Realms lore; it exists halfway in its own world now. Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think one should have to dive into Discord to find out answers to questions like that, and I also don't think any more opacity than necessary does a community so niche too many favours.

I feel that this is actually quite an odd question because it's a bit ahead of the curve. Until now we've worked on the wierd AR time system only. With the change in time scale, and the offical 'moving' of Arelith to the FR timeline, the actual interactions of Amn/Whaterdeep/Thay may become a bit more precient. But I still don't picture the team doing anything utterly world shaking to the grander scheme of the isle.

Currently Arelith works off 3rd ed lore (or at least maybe 3.5). The only thing that breaks that, in the wider world, is Firbolgs and that's not really relevent to a new player.

And again I don't think we're really running (as far as I know? Please correct me if I'm wrong I don't keep track of every single dm event) Huge Fearun Changing Events. No one is going to roll up a Cormyran Knight to be told 'oops the Dms just destroyed Cormyr last week!'

new PC might come to Andunor or Guldorand or Cordor, having heard about these events during their time on mainland Faerun -- but a perfectly new player has no idea of these things; all of this information can be gained through channels that exist exclusively in-game.

A) Really? 'Oh yes I am bob soldier from Amn so of course I am 100% in touch with teh recent socio-political movements of that one time some general bought wood from a logging camp!' Again - most mainland events that touch Arelith I really don't neccesarly picture as world shaking, or even terribly important to the vast majority of the populace. I think you over subscribe to the importance of Arelth to the rest of Fearun.
B) Are you suggesting that if a player seems a little oblivious of some IG events from the perspective of their characters nation, they should be mocked and derided? Are you suggesting that, if you are not 100% knowledgable of recent events - on any character, this is a game breaking issue for you? Because I find that a little odd. And it's also fun to find things out In Game, honestly.
C) Guys - we can hardly get people to actually read the basic rules. Do you think most new players will actually care about reading a hundred odd page document detailing every single DM event which features an outside power?

This isn't all to say that I think a new background introductory document to Arelith is a bad idea. It's not. But I don't think it's vastly urgent, or that it's actually as weighty as you seem to think.

To look at it another way...

For you, the day Amn graced your village was the most important day of your life. But for Amn.., it was Tuesday.

I think an Arelith primer on stuff like... tone and what the setting usually is could be helpful? Or things you probably ought to know as general knowledge (Amn backs Cordor, BG backs Guldorand, Andunor exists, Arelith is a series of islands not just Surface, etc)

Maybe also a reminder about where certain positions sit within the structure of settlements and how much authority/agency players have, because Settlement Leader might be a misnomer if it's more like a Settlement... Representative, I guess?

I guess my question is, what exactly is the peacekeeper RP stance on what goes on in Andunor? Are they policing all incidences of violence? Is this more of a "Please stop raiding the Hub, or having massive wars in front of them?" rather than "Two people had a disagreement and it got violent etc". I think having a bit more clear cut direction would help people understand where the line is as right now, at least as I player I've always been under the impression that they are happy to turn a blind eye to the majority of things as long as it doesn't become hellballs flying around and npcs getting mixed up into the frey etc.

Arigard wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 5:21 pm I guess my question is, what exactly is the peacekeeper RP stance on what goes on in Andunor? Are they policing all incidences of violence? Is this more of a "Please stop raiding the Hub, or having massive wars in front of them?" rather than "Two people had a disagreement and it got violent etc". I think having a bit more clear cut direction would help people understand where the line is as right now, at least as I player I've always been under the impression that they are happy to turn a blind eye to the majority of things as long as it doesn't become hellballs flying around and npcs getting mixed up into the frey etc.

Don’t hellball in the hub.

Arigard wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 5:21 pm I guess my question is, what exactly is the peacekeeper RP stance on what goes on in Andunor? Are they policing all incidences of violence? Is this more of a "Please stop raiding the Hub, or having massive wars in front of them?" rather than "Two people had a disagreement and it got violent etc". I think having a bit more clear cut direction would help people understand where the line is as right now, at least as I player I've always been under the impression that they are happy to turn a blind eye to the majority of things as long as it doesn't become hellballs flying around and npcs getting mixed up into the frey etc.

Aren about has it right when he says "Don't hellball the Hub," but I expect I'll be drafting some basic in-game guidelines soon to better define expectations in there. Don't expect long screeds of rules and resistrictions; it's all common sense "don't be an OOC Pufferfish" stuff.

Aren wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 5:31 pm

Arigard wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 5:21 pm I guess my question is, what exactly is the peacekeeper RP stance on what goes on in Andunor? Are they policing all incidences of violence? Is this more of a "Please stop raiding the Hub, or having massive wars in front of them?" rather than "Two people had a disagreement and it got violent etc". I think having a bit more clear cut direction would help people understand where the line is as right now, at least as I player I've always been under the impression that they are happy to turn a blind eye to the majority of things as long as it doesn't become hellballs flying around and npcs getting mixed up into the frey etc.

Don’t hellball in the hub.

I distinctly said you shouldn't be doing that and I'd think it is common sense that having full blown wars in the hub shouldn't be happening. My questions are about the more nuanced hostile situations that may occur at a smaller level.

i.e my character spots a surfacer that has been engaged in hostile attacks on the city skulking around the hub. It tries to flee. Am I allowed to pursue it and detain it within the city? Opposing those that stage attacks on citizens that are trading, seeking to only cause chaos and inflict casualty to the city seems to me to be something the Peacekeepers would support, as long as it doesn't spill over into something that causes problems to NPC merchants/guards etc.

But this is why I ask.

I'd say 'common sense' as may have been said even in this thread. Just put yourself in the peacekeeper's shoes. They don't care about the person you hate, they don't care about you. Their orders are to ensure the Hub is a place where coin exchanges hands.

A character may be big shot tyrant/chancellor/coronal of the day but the Peacekeepers are soldiers with orders and likely not interested in following the regional politics.

A spy trying to blend by shopping is still bringing in coin and It's not like anyone smart keeps any valuable tactical information in the shopping mall = Hub.

The Peacekeeper's update isn't a change of the rules. Avoid massive or careless conflict in the hub. It is not the Shadovar or Dis and hunting Surfacers who intrude is permitted. But the idea is to keep casualties to a minimum where possible.

Don't overread this as 'we've made this tool and changed the rules (or focusing more on the PVP in this area only)' as it is more:
We have the ability to do this now should the need arise. Expectations are the same.

If hellballs in the hub are the problem, I might have a suggestion:

Introduce an NPC in a cage there with a dialogue revealing that they used to be the house wizard of the Freth (or Claddath) before they hellballed the hub and now they are waiting to be auctioned off as a regular slave.
That'd clearly communicate to the players that if the ruling houses are not above the law, no-one is.

Same scenario could be applied to any Settlement where the players might be struggling with the interpretation of the setting.

Someone mentioned that the announcement itself discourages feedback but I'd like to offer some semi-old history to support what I'd say to that:

Just because Arelith's setting won't change based on current feedback doesn't mean it won't change in the future.

I doubt anyone on the team is interested in shutting down discourse or ideas, and sometimes ideas that are good just aren't made at the right time. I'd be willing to bet timing, as an aside, is probably a leading factor in a lot of setting choices.

For example: In mid 2018 it was proposed viewtopic.php?f=37&t=20063&p=163253&hil ... le#p163253 that the Devil's Table be switched from council-style to single-seat like other cities/districts - this idea was harnessed in character as well for a considerable time.

The idea more or less got a hard no from the team at the time, but years later the district was eventually switched to single seat. No griefing from the community to the devs was required, nor did it take place to my knowledge, nor would it have been an appropriate avenue for change. It remained in character as an idea shot down by the powerful House Freth, and that was that.

Another historical example of positive outcome, for lack of a better word but still in line with Irongron's post, was the removal of the small custom Pantheon that Arelith had 'officially' supported at the time - namely goblin-God Oogooboogoo and drow-Goddess La'laskra - both of which could actually be selected in game and caused some confusion for new players and sometimes general contention among old players. It is important to note that characters can still worship these 'dieties' as a completely in character choice and the Devs/DMs have never punished players for doing so.

Some players who really liked the custom dieties, upset by the removal, simply left Arelith to create their own setting, Moondeep Delve, with their own custom drow pantheon (and lots more, though I don't follow their very active development closely).

I cannot think of a more positive outcome to both Irongron's, and the people-who-left's, approach on the matter. Not only did Irongron steer their own server to their own satisfaction, and probably the satisfaction of many who disliked or were confused by the custom dieties, but we got a whole new NwN persistent world server out of the deal specifically for people interested in a different underdark experience. In the end everyone seems to have become a winner despite some initial friction.

If this ridiculously niche game needs anything at all its more servers and a bigger community catering to a larger audience - Arelith can't be expected to cater to everyone, nor should it, and I think a "If you don't like it you can giiiiiiiit out" (that's a Southpark reference/joke for us mid-30s players) is a healthy approach to not only the community at large, but the individual players and developers as well.