@Lutra - I'm not convinced that guideline/rule or whatever is consistently (or ever, in my case) followed. Countless times I've seen characters including my own banned from places with no obvious recourse, despite no real egregious crime or reputation that would've escaped the smaller paradigm in which said crime was committed and would've soon been forgotten. But yet, omnipotence does happen, and people get banned from places (sometimes all of them for the same crime at the same time) for bad reasons and the argument is no longer IC at that point, since they're excluded from RP entirely. To some degree, it usually feels more like an OOC ban than IC ban at this point, and that's just being honest.
Since metagaming is a thing on amia, and cripples your ability to circumvent the ban (which should realisticly be possible IC), it basically just ensures you are kicked out of RP with these areas, given that they are basically plot protected at this point. Objectively, you can say reroll, and be X character, but the reality is, if everyone rerolled a knight and sat in Kohlingen, people would be cybering/social rp in a week, or quitting. Part of our differences allows for different scenarios, places, conversations, dramas, conflict that you simply would not get if you're all on the same side. My conclusion was merely drawn from my experience of large factions leaning / relying heavily on DM driven plots/stories to make their gameplay fun and interesting. This is a clear derivative of the aforementioned conclusion.
There are 4⁴⁰⁰ different genetic DNA possibilities for humans (4^n really), and what makes us beautiful is that we're all different. Consequently, what makes Amia fun for me, is when you can roleplay with other people outside of your clique once in a while; and for everyone, bans are either the iron curtain, or maybe a safe space. Either one is anti-social and won't help be the catalyst for any future RP.
The hard liners that are currently playing evil appear to be the most upset by the bans at the moment.
We haven't really had problems with enforcing bans; you just sort of deal with it.
The more this thread goes on it seems like people don't want to deal with the one harsh punitive measure there is or lighten it up.
It's a ban. It happens In Character- It should be handled in character.
Do you really find this surprising, PassionateShadow? Do you really?
Good-and-hostile(not just necessarily good characters) characters may get banned from evil or ambiguously neutral(read: fort) settlements, but when these settlements are in the middle of bumblefuck nowhere, provide no services than a once-in-a-blue-moon RP meetup, and can't expand because the moment they lay stone over a piece of wood, 200 level 40 Silver Dragons will blow the settlement up, can you blame them? Good-and-hostile characters will also only be banished in a case-by-case basis, like sabotaging said settlements or slaying members. Even then, they can safely ignore this ban as there's little DM oversight and a few comparatively weak guards and few or scattered players aren't going to stop them, allowing the good-and-hostile characters to snoop around and prepare the impending explosion.
Now, what happens when an evil or ambiguously neutral character gets banned? They're segregated from a high-traffic location(where much Roleplay may occur) or a significant services or travel area. While neutral Cordor is thankfully more lax due to its lack of supernatural guards, and the presence of a sewer system for snooping Kohlingen has big-brother Mages and Rangers that can decipher have of what you do or track you down for merely being within certain zones. While good may do whatever it desires in evil's vulnerable town, you can't do the same in a good town. Because that's a "big deal".
Now, people have been stating in this thread that people have been banned over OOC reasons, which conflicts with you "deal with it IC" disregard of the problem. People have also pointed out that "dealing with it IC" leads to a menagerie of both red tape and a lack of OOC effort on those who place bans to even care, leading to wasted effort over something that may even be an extremely small deal.
Personally, I think those Silver Dragons on the one side of the Minmir bridge should be pushed back behind the Quagmire caves and beastmen transitions, otherwise players are literally metagaming just to level.
The good thing about faction bans though, is that they can pretty much be treated like Faith bans, with the icons of Sharr equating to heraldry or whatnot of the faction, and I would accuse anyone of metagaming should they know about my character's affiliations unless I made it apparent or gave them enough IC reasoning.
The hard liners that are currently playing evil appear to be the most upset by the bans at the moment.
We haven't really had problems with enforcing bans; you just sort of deal with it.
The more this thread goes on it seems like people don't want to deal with the one harsh punitive measure there is or lighten it up.
It's a ban. It happens In Character- It should be handled in character.
Do you really find this surprising, PassionateShadow? Do you really?
Good-and-hostile(not just necessarily good characters) characters may get banned from evil or ambiguously neutral(read: fort) settlements, but when these settlements are in the middle of bumblefuck nowhere, provide no services than a once-in-a-blue-moon RP meetup, and can't expand because the moment they lay stone over a piece of wood, 200 level 40 Silver Dragons will blow the settlement up, can you blame them? Good-and-hostile characters will also only be banished in a case-by-case basis, like sabotaging said settlements or slaying members. Even then, they can safely ignore this ban as there's little DM oversight and a few comparatively weak guards and few or scattered players aren't going to stop them, allowing the good-and-hostile characters to snoop around and prepare the impending explosion.
Now, what happens when an evil or ambiguously neutral character gets banned? They're segregated from a high-traffic location(where much Roleplay may occur) or a significant services or travel area. While neutral Cordor is thankfully more lax due to its lack of supernatural guards, and the presence of a sewer system for snooping Kohlingen has big-brother Mages and Rangers that can decipher have of what you do or track you down for merely being within certain zones. While good may do whatever it desires in evil's vulnerable town, you can't do the same in a good town. Because that's a "big deal".
Now, people have been stating in this thread that people have been banned over OOC reasons, which conflicts with you "deal with it IC" disregard of the problem. People have also pointed out that "dealing with it IC" leads to a menagerie of both red tape and a lack of OOC effort on those who place bans to even care, leading to wasted effort over something that may even be an extremely small deal.
Personally, I think those Silver Dragons on the one side of the Minmir bridge should be pushed back behind the Quagmire caves and beastmen transitions, otherwise players are literally metagaming just to level.
The good thing about faction bans though, is that they can pretty much be treated like Faith bans, with the icons of Sharr equating to heraldry or whatnot of the faction, and I would accuse anyone of metagaming should they know about my character's affiliations unless I made it apparent or gave them enough IC reasoning.
Agree with every thing there, except I've been told by players I need to notify my faction people myself and those people need a dm to visit.
So yeah unless something has changed towns don't even need to know who they are banning specifically to enforce the dm rule and even then, ic queries are met with stonewalling and a total lack of response.
We haven't really had problems with enforcing bans; you just sort of deal with it.
I think this is the most telling comment tbqh. Of course people haven't had problems trying to enforce bans, because they don't need to work to enforce it. The second the ban is levied, it becomes the job of the guards and DMs to enforce - it becomes the purview of a server rule. IC enforcement no longer needs to occur - you can tell the other player they are breaking the rules and metagaming with their presence, and if they don't leave right now you will be reporting them to the DMs.
That's not enforcement of a ban, that's just adding a name to a list and then letting the server rules do your job for you. At which point, yes, you just sort of deal with it, because there is absolutely no recourse for any wronged party to engage in any sort of actions or dialog, and if they somehow manage to, there is absolutely no guarantee they get a response or that anything is actually done, because "I don't believe your proof" is completely IC, regardless of any actual reasoning.
_________________ Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
Yeah. Being banned for something you did/didn't do/are, trying to appeal it, and being out outright ignored despite letters, chats, etc, is super frustrating.
It's even more frustrating when you finally get around to just going to a dm character specifically, and they say it's the first they heard of it, because said player who was getting your letters and saying you would talk about it just was actually doing literally nothing because it was 'ic' to totally ignore you/lie to you.
Which is why big cities and travel hubs need direct dm oversight.
Im just throwing my understanding in to this after years of NWN, tabletop, writing settings and lore of my own.
But if I would been the creator of Amia, I would allow bans of people. I mean, why would Kohlingen let Banites inside? Why would Banites let sworn enemies inside? To be nice to people OOCLY? Well Roleplaying is the core ingredient here.
When OOC starts to kick in, things get messy! And trust me, I been there on every side imaginable except DM side. I think the best solution is to have 2-3 DMS look over the situation, and take control of a current issue. Why 2-3 DMs? Cause that will give more input and perhaps one DM is focused on doing evil quests or be a Kohlingen DM. That would also stop anyone from yelling out loud that "Dm Kohl is protecting Kohlingen in this cause he is DM of them!".
I think the bans add to the server, my char is banned in Kohlingen. Cause of a very infected and nasty OOC fight long ago, maybe some of the oldies remember.
But at the core, communication and being thoughtful how we present ourself, what we expect from each others is for the better.
IC should not be driven by OOC feelings and thoughts, it is hard but it should not. And OOC should not be driven by IC.
_________________ Plays: Sylveera : Sun Elven fury packed in an Arcane Archer, not a Drow, promise. Tetrik : Greed incarnate in a Duergar. Budly : Has gone to a better place. Barrililath : Shadowy Drow, probably less Drow than Sylv ever be.
Kohl bans are generally not the issue here, aside from the communication issue which passionate shadow just posted about so that problem is basically rectified, for kohl anyway.
Joined: 02 Jun 2015 Location: Georgia, United States.
Speaking from a "Evil character" who is banned from a lot of areas.
While I understand being banned, because it is reasonable for the roleplay. People who only play Good aligned characters have no idea how much of a bitch it is. I can't roleplay with 90% of the server because they're in places my character is banned from. (ie / Kohlingen, Bendir Dale and Wharftown.) There are no ways my character can physically lift his bans, because it would cost too great for HoJo to do so.
I can't simply reroll a good character, because while I have HoJo, people are afraid of metagaming. So I can't play in Kohlingen, even though I've got a Paladin. I can't play in some of the most popular RP areas because of such.
While I agree it is appropriate for Roleplay, lets face it.. Being banned from about 90% of the server makes very little rp.
The hard liners that are currently playing evil appear to be the most upset by the bans at the moment.
We haven't really had problems with enforcing bans; you just sort of deal with it.
The more this thread goes on it seems like people don't want to deal with the one harsh punitive measure there is or lighten it up.
Yeah no shit people get upset when they are banned. Give people abuse-able powers and of course they're going to act like assholes with it.
Nick11689 wrote:
The Chultan, Maiti, and his constituents are hereby banned from Cordorian lands as per order of Speaker Andrew Fryar for disturbing the peace, refusal to adhere to the guards order, and breaking into highly secured Cordorian held grounds. He is dangerous so I'd advise not approaching him alone for arrest.
Sergeant Castor Deneb Zodayas
Look at the example above. Matthew, Andrew Fryar, and Castor were outside of Cordor lands. A DM sends out a shout saying there's a bunch of commotion going on in the East Coast, which is outside of the Cordor gates and not Cordor land. Maiti and a Jergali cleric go and check it out. We fight some undead before seeing the three of you. Once you see us, you order us to leave, to which I respond that we are clearing undead. The cleric begins to cast Deathwatch to make sure there are no more undead underwater. During this time, the three of you stop what you are doing to come over and tell us to leave a bunch of times. When that doesn't work, the three of you change to OOC, informing us that there were guards posted there (there were not) and that the gate was closed (the gate was wide open). With a DM present both of these things could have been done mechanically with ease, but instead we get baited into an excuse to be banned. The cleric finishes the spell, we talk for a moment, and then we both leave.
Was I violent? No. Did I insult anyone? No. Did I threaten anyone? No. I got banned from a city because I showed up to a DM prompt, did what my character would do when he came across undead, and wouldn't listen to the unlawful orders of a pair of guards outside of their jurisdiction and a dude with a mustache.
The hard liners that are currently playing evil appear to be the most upset by the bans at the moment.
We haven't really had problems with enforcing bans; you just sort of deal with it.
The more this thread goes on it seems like people don't want to deal with the one harsh punitive measure there is or lighten it up.
Yeah no shit people get upset when they are banned. Give people abuse-able powers and of course they're going to act like assholes with it.
Nick11689 wrote:
The Chultan, Maiti, and his constituents are hereby banned from Cordorian lands as per order of Speaker Andrew Fryar for disturbing the peace, refusal to adhere to the guards order, and breaking into highly secured Cordorian held grounds. He is dangerous so I'd advise not approaching him alone for arrest.
Sergeant Castor Deneb Zodayas
Look at the example above. Matthew, Andrew Fryar, and Castor were outside of Cordor lands. A DM sends out a shout saying there's a bunch of commotion going on in the East Coast, which is outside of the Cordor gates and not Cordor land. Maiti and a Jergali cleric go and check it out. We fight some undead before seeing the three of you. Once you see us, you order us to leave, to which I respond that we are clearing undead. The cleric begins to cast Deathwatch to make sure there are no more undead underwater. During this time, the three of you stop what you are doing to come over and tell us to leave a bunch of times. When that doesn't work, the three of you change to OOC, informing us that there were guards posted there (there were not) and that the gate was closed (the gate was wide open). With a DM present both of these things could have been done mechanically with ease, but instead we get baited into an excuse to be banned. The cleric finishes the spell, we talk for a moment, and then we both leave.
Was I violent? No. Did I insult anyone? No. Did I threaten anyone? No. I got banned from a city because I showed up to a DM prompt, did what my character would do when he came across undead, and wouldn't listen to the unlawful orders of a pair of guards outside of their jurisdiction and a dude with a mustache.
Yeah. Borders are huge. I know people have been banned from settlements for things done not even in the same zone but are considered the "lands" of some place.
Like read the sign by Bendir Dale and see how far they actually claim authority and can order you to do things. It's huuuuuuge.
And if you don't follow those instructions? Exile.
I was not planning on posting in this tbh... but there are a couple things I think I would like to put forward as my personal opinions. This means it's my opinion only, I won't be revisiting this thread to defend my stance here cause tbh I don't need to defend how I feel on the matter.
1] Should a player be oocly informed of a ban? I think so; it sounds to be an important bit of communication that can prevent a huge amount of issues that could arise up to and including the player unknowingly metagaming guards. This is ofc different than the character knowing about the ban; for if the player knows and the character doesn't they can contact a DM to oversee guards reaction, plan a mini session, etc. where their character can learn about the ban IC and then react as necessary according to their nature and alignment.
2] Should a character be given temporary bans at the first offense? I don't think this should be a blanket rule. The first "offense" could be something minor like harassment or theft but it could also be something huge like outright murder or treason. Bans should be based on the level of offense [ie. what act/ crime/ was committed] and be adjusted by environmental factors. By environmental factors I mean this: certain cities and areas would have different levels of offense--
Kohlingen: Murder someone, not in self defense but in cold blood, or committing some other dastardly crime like extreme torture on an innocent... likely your PC won't be invited back. Ever. Sure... some people can change their ways and find forgiveness. But something like this, to my thinking, would warrant a flat out ban right off the bat. -Then- work to get it removed. Is it difficult? Probably... Lawful Good doesn't equate Lawful Nice or prevent Lawful Suspicious.
Cordor: I think the city on the water may find Treason high up on their roster [it's fine if I'm wrong, but hey, it's only an example here] for things they probably wouldn't tolerate. While not as lenient as some places [*cough* Tarkuul *cough*] murder may be high on the list of offences, but may not be as high as in Kohlingen and their goodly moral standpoint.
Tarkuul: This city may let your PC literally get away with murder if it is in the pursuit of knowledge, but if you obstruct the right for someone to gain knowledge by say somehow managing to burn down the big library there while shouting "The Voice is a big stupid turdwad" ...
...see what I mean? Priorities for what constitutes "A Big Offence" can obviously differ based on where they happen at. I agree that doing something minor in a settlement or against a representative of that settlement equating a temporary ban at the first offense, or heck, even two or three. But temp bans as a blanket go to for every first time offender? I think no.
3] Should factions be bannable? Absolutely. Whether based on Race [Drow for Winya, Chromatic Kin and tiefers for Kohlingen], Religion [Falazurites for Bendir], or Politics [ducking out of this one, I hate politics ^^] every settlement has the right to ban a faction based on that settlement's stance toward them. However. This one is where things are tricky; there are many situations where this can be blurry:
A] You play a PC who is not part of a faction [religion, race, etc], but hangs out IC with known members and may not be allowed in a settlement because of guilt by association and the possibility you are a spy. B] You play a PC who is not in a faction [religion, race, etc] but from a faction known to be allied with them. Especially relevant in times of war or other conflict. C] You play a PC who is part of a faction [religion, race, etc] but your association is a hush-hush secret. Examples: Sharrans, Maskarrans, fey'ri and the like usually don't announce their presence. D] You play a PC who could be mistaken for a faction [religion, race, etc.] based on your PC's physical characteristics, dress, manner, etc.
In this kind of sticky situation is always good to have DM input on before just assuming and always err on the side of caution. Example: I play a non-standard DD with purple scales; she is not a Chromatic, but I would not have taken her into Kohlingen until I had an IC invitation / escort from a known and trusted member of that city, & / or had DM oversight when she first went because she is not the norm. A regular human guard might have easily mistaken her for a Chromatic Kin and may not have allowed her in. I can't say if an NPC would have just let her blow right through the gates, not my place and not my job, so I wait and let rp take it as it may.
All this being said, I put in the couple most notable things that struck me on this broad subject. Tchau folks and Beeeee Gooood [*Sounds like E.T.*].
I think if you're going to ban a faction there should at least be some evidence of actual faction conflict or wrongdoing. Once it gets to faction-level bans it should be an issue of open faction conflict. Remember being part of a faction that's banned bars your other characters from participation, there should be some truth or at least deceleration of intent for a ban of that level.
Open war? Ban.
Naval blockade? Ban.
"Me and my friends will kill all of you with a plague of mummy rot mwa hwa hwa!" Ban.
"One person in that pack of 15 people may have done something but it wasn't in town." BAN THEM ALL.
See what I mean? One of these things is not like the other. And since faction bans have ramifications for your whole account, it should be treated more seriously.
Remember being part of a faction that's banned bars your other characters from participation
And since faction bans have ramifications for your whole account
I've never heard of this.
*Editing to clarify: I know you can't/ shouldn't be in multiple factions, especially ones that oppose each other, and that is not what I am referring to. Also, just because I haven't heard of it doesn't mean I am saying it doesnt exist.
Remember being part of a faction that's banned bars your other characters from participation
And since faction bans have ramifications for your whole account
I've never heard of this.
*Editing to clarify: I know you can't/ shouldn't be in multiple factions, especially ones that oppose each other, and that is not what I am referring to. Also, just because I haven't heard of it doesn't mean I am saying it doesnt exist.
Yeah it's a thing.
It's why the faction banning is so worrysome for some players.
Remember being part of a faction that's banned bars your other characters from participation
And since faction bans have ramifications for your whole account
I've never heard of this.
*Editing to clarify: I know you can't/ shouldn't be in multiple factions, especially ones that oppose each other, and that is not what I am referring to. Also, just because I haven't heard of it doesn't mean I am saying it doesnt exist.
Yeah it's a thing.
It's why the faction banning is so worrysome for some players.
What?
You should specify whether you mean this is a trend or a rule. Doesnt sound like the latter. That makes little sense.
You should specify whether you mean this is a trend or a rule. Doesnt sound like the latter. That makes little sense.
I mean, when players tell me, as a player ooc, that they are afraid to join my faction (The Fort in this case), because they fear it would exclude them from other factions/rp on other characters, a sort of RP blackballing, it's a problem.
Again, in this case specifically, there have been no actual faction hostilities.
Joined: 02 Jun 2015 Location: Georgia, United States.
To be fair, I agree a little bit with Commie. Playing a evil char makes barriers. A lot of PCs have told me they've found it difficult going from Evil to Good because OOCly people don't trust them, because they played evil.
To be fair, I agree a little bit with Commie. Playing a evil char makes barriers. A lot of PCs have told me they've found it difficult going from Evil to Good because OOCly people don't trust them, because they played evil.
And I feel I have to be a responsible faction leader and ooc warn people that advancement in the fort means total removal from other areas on the character they are on as well as ripples through the rest of their stable of toons.
And keep in mind, no war declarations, no hostilities, no highway-manning, no naval blockades, no sabotage, no undermining, faction is just banned. Whole faction.
I've had similar issues when I bothered playing openly evil characters, back in the day. My advice goes back to my previous post before the last. Nothing can change it more effectively than ourselves.
I've had similar issues when I bothered playing openly evil characters, back in the day. My advice goes back to my previous post before the last. Nothing can change it more effectively than ourselves.
well yeah, that's the issue.
bans are still going out with no chance of appeal for minor crimes, since the topic was made and went silent the first time, and factions are still banned despite no hostility. we waited a while, nothing changed, now we're here again saying it's still wrong and still going on and needs to be fixed.
edit; also i've removed every ban that was ever contested in the fort
If NWN had a more robust engine you could automate guards with faction flags etc... fighting breaks out the guards would automatically subdue the offenders, levy punishments etc.
We do not live in those kind of times however... I'm just not sure its possible to the extent required.
I mean, when players tell me, as a player ooc, that they are afraid to join my faction (The Fort in this case), because they fear it would exclude them from other factions/rp on other characters, a sort of RP blackballing, it's a problem.
This is different from what I thought you were saying in the previous post. I took from it that it was a rule somewhere, not people being OOCly biased. That in itself is a trust issue and a bit different from a ruling by the DMs. If it is, however, I would like to know, as there is a difference, as Sam said, in trend and Rule.
For example: --The possibility of metagaming direct information from... say a person who plays an elven Councillor in Winya and also plays in a fey'ri enclave who wants to take Winya down [example] would be direct conflict of interest, and would be avoided by the player and by any DM involved, ideally, hence the no character in more than one or opposing faction makes perfect sense. --But a person who plays a merchant human who lives in Kohlingen, not a part of the factions there and not privy to secret / sensitive information, and also plays an evil murderous Lolthite Drow who stays in the Underdark... would that human be banned from common rp interactions in that city? Or even in Cordor or Bendir Dale, since last I checked non-Eilistraeen Drow are not allowed in those settlements either.
Since the player base on Amia is as small as it is there are people with alts. Some people don't have them and that is okay for them, just as it is okay for people to have alternate characters; it's personal preference. Understanding what is and what is not in the rules is imperative to everyone in that sense, which is why I would want to know if it is a rule.
However, I'm not saying that your point isn't a barrier in that sense, though, and not a problem in itself. Mistrust in the playerbase is something that should not be promoted in any sense.
Quote:
To be fair, I agree a little bit with Commie. Playing a evil char makes barriers. A lot of PCs have told me they've found it difficult going from Evil to Good because OOCly people don't trust them, because they played evil.
I mean, when players tell me, as a player ooc, that they are afraid to join my faction (The Fort in this case), because they fear it would exclude them from other factions/rp on other characters, a sort of RP blackballing, it's a problem.
This is different from what I thought you were saying in the previous post. I took from it that it was a rule somewhere, not people being OOCly biased. That in itself is a trust issue and a bit different from a ruling by the DMs. If it is, however, I would like to know, as there is a difference, as Sam said, in trend and Rule.
For example: --The possibility of metagaming direct information from... say a person who plays an elven Councillor in Winya and also plays in a fey'ri enclave who wants to take Winya down [example] would be direct conflict of interest, and would be avoided by the player and by any DM involved, ideally, hence the no character in more than one or opposing faction makes perfect sense. --But a person who plays a merchant human who lives in Kohlingen, not a part of the factions there and not privy to secret / sensitive information, and also plays an evil murderous Lolthite Drow who stays in the Underdark... would that human be banned from common rp interactions in that city? Or even in Cordor or Bendir Dale, since last I checked non-Eilistraeen Drow are not allowed in those settlements either.
Since the player base on Amia is as small as it is there are people with alts. Some people don't have them and that is okay for them, just as it is okay for people to have alternate characters; it's personal preference. Understanding what is and what is not in the rules is imperative to everyone in that sense, which is why I would want to know if it is a rule.
However, I'm not saying that your point isn't a barrier in that sense, though, and not a problem in itself. Mistrust in the playerbase is something that should not be promoted in any sense.
Quote:
To be fair, I agree a little bit with Commie. Playing a evil char makes barriers. A lot of PCs have told me they've found it difficult going from Evil to Good because OOCly people don't trust them, because they played evil.
Things like this are rather depressing to hear.
Anyhow .. cheers.
and i agree with you. if someone is in a faction that's at war or in conflict with another faction, you should not have characters in the opposing group.
but there's no conflict here. it's just arbitrary. just thrown on the list. no war, no blockade, no nothing. there's not even opposition; we help the groups we're banned from fight demons and brigands and whatever.
As an aside: the current changes to the frozenfar banlist are not at all motivated by this topic; if you talk to me and apologize/say you won't do it again you're just off the list, barring some hyper egregious offense. It's always been like that with me and the frozenfar ban list; today a bunch of people just came to me sort of all at once in Cordor this evening, or just stopped playing so I culled them to de-bloat the list since I was in there.
I posted a proposal of a clear rule setting for city bans 2 days ago. Should have the final consensus and wording ready next week then.
Factions are a player thing. We cannot do much if players do not trust other players ooc. But factions are kinda their thing who they want with them and what they want to do. I am not very inclined to interfere there, personally. Cities are another matter as they are public and also are led by NPC, who have the final say in the city.
We do however force people to pick a side if we notice someone is in the same conflict with two characters, and stay out complete with the other character, no matter if in a faction or as "lonesome ranger".
Additionally there are those two rules: - You cannot have more than one character per Faction. This means you can have a character in faction A and one in faction B, but not two characters in faction A. - You are not allowed to lead more than one faction at a time.
- You usually get temporary ban if you committed a crime as per penal law (thievery in Kohlingen for example 1 week). - You are getting permanently banned because you are posing as threat to the settlement or broke penal laws repeatedly. In both cases you are a threat to national security in modern terminology. Of course more radical steps will be made towards your characters.
Ok. So why is a person who simply tried to attain a job using questionable personal information and an evil alignment banned? Yes, lying, but it is neither a crime by penal law, nor are you a threat to the setllement. Or is everyone who is evil suddenly a threat?
Amarice-Elaraliel wrote:
Additionally there are those two rules: - You cannot have more than one character per Faction. This means you can have a character in faction A and one in faction B, but not two characters in faction A. - You are not allowed to lead more than one faction at a time.
You'll have to give up Nicholas if you do. You can't play both sides.
You also can't play two directly and strictly opposing factions. I can't be a part of Kohlingen's guard and a a part of a group trying to do illegal things in Kohl, unless it is on the same character. At least that is how it used to be handled.
Akhyls, I think you should avoid specific events on the ooc forums.
Also, that is incorrect:
PaladinOfSune wrote:
Feel free to use specific incidents to explain your position but avoid specifically using these incidents to flame and degrade others; this is not helping the community.
Akhlys made a perfectly correct point with what he said, and it only really can be described by explaining the event.
Joined: 17 Oct 2011 Location: The Hall of the Mountain King
You're making a big deal out of a non-issue imo. I don't see any issues in being a part of for instance Kholingen and Tarkuul at the same time, as these factions rarely have any open conflict. As long as people join other factions to have fun, then being in several factions shouldn't be a problem.
_________________ I am not weird, I am limited edition
I posted a proposal of a clear rule setting for city bans 2 days ago. Should have the final consensus and wording ready next week then.
Factions are a player thing. We cannot do much if players do not trust other players ooc. But factions are kinda their thing who they want with them and what they want to do. I am not very inclined to interfere there, personally. Cities are another matter as they are public and also are led by NPC, who have the final say in the city.
cool beans.
im guessing it either wasn't public or i missed it
also to clarify, when im upset about 'faction bans' here, i mean when a faction is banned from a city, not when a faction bans an individual from their faction HQ.
No it isn't made public yet. I let every DM give their opinion on my wording, then I post the result on the forum. Of course you can still voice your concerns then if there are any, or if you feel something needs elaboration.
That said, I do not expect everyone to be completely happy with the result, that never really happens.
But I am fairly certain this will erase some issues and make things clearer, at the very least.
No it isn't made public yet. I let every DM give their opinion on my wording, then I post the result on the forum. Of course you can still voice your concerns then if there are any, or if you feel something needs elaboration.
That said, I do not expect everyone to be completely happy with the result, that never really happens.
But I am fairly certain this will erase some issues and make things clearer, at the very least.
Clearing it all up will be good at least. Looking forward to the announcement.
How are you supposed to bring evidence of "evil factions"? What is evidence? We need to keep in mind that we cannot hold a modern mindset. There will be no hacking a database or finding documents or finger prints. When 20 different characters speak of an attack on farmers in area Y. I say that be evidence fit for a setting like this.
_________________ Plays: Sylveera : Sun Elven fury packed in an Arcane Archer, not a Drow, promise. Tetrik : Greed incarnate in a Duergar. Budly : Has gone to a better place. Barrililath : Shadowy Drow, probably less Drow than Sylv ever be.
Joined: 12 Nov 2015 Location: The belly of the beast
There within lies the problem. Nine times out of ten, the information reaches people second hand. I once recieved threat of a ban from a character, utilizing screenshots from one of his alts. An evil alt that was in my party. We can only do so much about metagaming. Sometimes it's not even intentional. The best we can do as players, is have a little decency and respect for one another and try to make things realistic. If someone meanders into your town under alterself, you have to ask yourself, "Would I really be suspicious of this lady/fellow...do I question every new face like this? In that sense..I'd like to ask, Since true seeing is altered in Amia to give you a +spot/invis, does it still pierce magical effects or do we RP the broken version? Anyway. I just used that as an example of accidental RP strings being pulled because you see a metatag and it subconciously makes you behave differently. I have to catch myself sometimes. I'd also like to probe as to whether or not we can make it so dice rolls must be honored. You have an entire bag of untapped abilities that people can choose to ignore, because there is a rule against it. Such as the speechcraft skills. It seems to me that ignoring my bluff roll, would give me the leeway to ignore someones attack role. "I don't liked being fooled, so I am going to pretend it can't happen". Well. I don't like failing fort saves, but that shit certainly does happen. This is the divide between RP characters and PvP characters that I am always talking about and Commie and Tormak (Love You) are always so quick to counter. I could simply lie or talk my way out of a fight...but dammit. The other person doesn't have to acknowledge it because they have all points in spellcraft, tumble and UMD. Just a thought.
_________________ Jace Fenneril: Cleric of Sharess.
Michael Harcourte: Painter, Scribe.
Sebastian Mayartte: Gambler, MercenaryDeceased
Last edited by thunderbrush on Mon, Jan 09 2017, 14:26 PM, edited 1 time in total.
Still an interesting question. How do we IC tackle the deviance of a spell like trueseeing from its sometimes PNP application and it's mechanical application
Still an interesting question. How do we IC tackle the deviance of a spell like trueseeing from its sometimes PNP application and it's mechanical application
If a DM granted alter self is being misused and no IC information given to the people under True Seeing followed with DM hearing about that. You can expect them to look into it and taking the widgets away if not RPied properly. Only few cases have alter self that can't be breached. Seeing people with see in is or true seeing should trigger you to ask them which one is it and act accordingly. What you can't do is to tell them to be honest, which is a trust we should place towards them to do so and vice versa.
Problem is some people either don't notice you're in your alter self, even if it's a different race, and report you as your un-disguised self without ever interacting with you, and then you have to deal with it, never really knowing how you were found out.
Regarding the Alter Self and True Sight shenanagans the rules have always bothered me in the comical neverending cycle of questions way:
What about people who are invisible/hiding with True Sight that you can't see? Do you need to spout OOC every few seconds to make sure? What makes assassin Alter Self impenetrable?How does True Sight break a Transmutation spell that can give you usable apendages,does it just tell them they are under the spell, if so how much information?What if I'm not sure someone can see my character while hiding, only they know that!? When are any of these vaguenesses a rule breach? Do I need to outright tell them or is are IC cues enough?Whendoesthe fine print become unreadable?
This is why communication is key. If you're going to do something with a player you should quickly ask them ooc if they are doing any of those things. I mean it takes 2 seconds, and is really polite.
And if a player has never seen your PC before how would they know to ask? How do you know to ask the invisible boogey man that doesn't want anyone to know they are even there watching your disguised character?
The Alter Self rules scream DM Supervision 24/7 'except' under the assassin clause, to which only has bans to worry about.
And if a player has never seen your PC before how would they know to ask? How do you know to ask the invisible boogey man that doesn't want anyone to know they are even there watching your disguised character?
The Alter Self rules scream DM Supervision 24/7 'except' under the assassin clause, to which only has bans to worry about.
This is the center of the issue really. People make reports on things they can't/shouldn't know and DM's don't get with the players involved to see if it's fair/actually happened.
You can't contest it because it's on a private faction forum too.
Alter Self can't be penetrated because it's mundane, not magical, so True Seeing has no effect on it. That's straight up spot checks and such.
True Seeing allows you to see a person's real self, unless they are a druid/shifter/etc using a wildshape-like ability.
The rest of your questions have pretty straightforward answers: If you can't see them then, well, you don't know they are there (and vice versa) so it doesn't matter if they can see you. Do what you normally would.
_________________ Whomst've'll'd'mn't I play: Salema Nefahri::A penny for your thots Zrae'a'stra'fryn::That which nightmares are made of Khasir::From the East a storm is coming
Alter Self can't be penetrated because it's mundane, not magical, so True Seeing has no effect on it. That's straight up spot checks and such.
True Seeing allows you to see a person's real self, unless they are a druid/shifter/etc using a wildshape-like ability.
The rest of your questions have pretty straightforward answers: If you can't see them then, well, you don't know they are there (and vice versa) so it doesn't matter if they can see you. Do what you normally would.
Alter Self is penetrated by True Sight unless you happen to have assassin ranks; as I've been told.
As for Druid wildshapes I am unsure if I had ever seen a ruling on it, is it like assassin's or is it like polymorph? What about assassin druids?
Alter Self can't be penetrated because it's mundane, not magical, so True Seeing has no effect on it. That's straight up spot checks and such.
True Seeing allows you to see a person's real self, unless they are a druid/shifter/etc using a wildshape-like ability.
The rest of your questions have pretty straightforward answers: If you can't see them then, well, you don't know they are there (and vice versa) so it doesn't matter if they can see you. Do what you normally would.
Alter Self is penetrated by True Sight unless you happen to have assassin ranks; as I've been told.
As for Druid wildshapes I am unsure if I had ever seen a ruling on it, is it like assassin's or is it like polymorph? What about assassin druids?
wild-shape, species specific disguises, and alter self if used by an assassin are not pierce-able by true seeing.
Alter Self can't be penetrated because it's mundane, not magical, so True Seeing has no effect on it. That's straight up spot checks and such.
True Seeing allows you to see a person's real self, unless they are a druid/shifter/etc using a wildshape-like ability.
The rest of your questions have pretty straightforward answers: If you can't see them then, well, you don't know they are there (and vice versa) so it doesn't matter if they can see you. Do what you normally would.
Alter Self is penetrated by True Sight unless you happen to have assassin ranks; as I've been told.
As for Druid wildshapes I am unsure if I had ever seen a ruling on it, is it like assassin's or is it like polymorph? What about assassin druids?
It's in the post Gribbo linked.
Quote:
True Seeing: It functions per PnP, with these Amia specific additions and alterations:
Various special DM granted subraces have un-pierceable disguises, such as Dragons, Fey'ri, and others at our discretion. Assassins' Alter Self [per DC requests] - one "Alter Ego" is un-pierceable by True Sight. This must be maintained and cannot be changed at a whim. Druids' and Shifters' Wildshape, Elemental Shape, Greater Wildshapes, all feat-granted forms, and Thousand Faces are un-pierceable by True Sight.
_________________ Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
FAQ
Search
Login
