AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Strawberry Stallion wrote:

alamut wrote:

I came to one conclusion after being playing with banites: no, DMs and good toons don't kill banites. Banites kill banites! ICly and OOCly. They often forget that you can be an IC arse, but avoid that OOC. It only washes the fun away and often pushes good banite players to the good side of the server.

wat

He's saying that back in the days when we had the real Church of Bane, as long as we had absolutely blind obedience to the higher ranked officers of the Church, we were the strongest PC faction that ever came through Amia. As soon as the OOC bullshit and stupid relationship RP went in, the faction crumbled to dust.

In other words, when Banites were united as one, nobody could touch them. When Banites started plotting against other Banites IC and OOC, it all went down.

Dead wrote:

Strawberry Stallion wrote:

alamut wrote:

I came to one conclusion after being playing with banites: no, DMs and good toons don't kill banites. Banites kill banites! ICly and OOCly. They often forget that you can be an IC arse, but avoid that OOC. It only washes the fun away and often pushes good banite players to the good side of the server.

wat

He's saying that back in the days when we had the real Church of Bane, as long as we had absolutely blind obedience to the higher ranked officers of the Church, we were the strongest PC faction that ever came through Amia. As soon as the OOC bullshit and stupid relationship RP went in, the faction crumbled to dust.

In other words, when Banites were united as one, nobody could touch them. When Banites started plotting against other Banites IC and OOC, it all went down.

Thanks for putting it into words I can understand, Dead.

"Stupid relationship RP?" Because evil characters aren't supposed to have relationships, I guess?

I don't thiunk that's what Dead meant..

Fair play I'm not entirely sure Dead quite interpreted what Alamut meant rightly either but I could be wrong:

My reckoning is that Alamut means that even in playing the Banites (whom are a malign and evil faction ICly) , the OOC feelings of the players they interact with need to be considered to some measure, but while keeping the actual RP in character and interesting.

Liz wrote:

"Stupid relationship RP?" Because evil characters aren't supposed to have relationships, I guess?

Did I say stupid EVIL relationship RP?
I've only seen relationship RP ruin far too many quality characters and factions.

I don't even know what to say to that. You're saying that no relationship RP is ever constructive? Characters should just be tools of their factions, and nothing more?

I really hope I'm misreading you here.

Why don't you make a thread about relationship rp instead of trying to start an argument about it here?

Liz wrote:

I don't even know what to say to that. You're saying that no relationship RP is ever constructive? Characters should just be tools of their factions, and nothing more?

I really hope I'm misreading you here.

You are reading exactly what I am saying. No more, no less. I did not use the word 'tool' in my post, just like I did not use the world 'evil' in my previous post, but you seem to be keen on putting the words in my mouth. So think whatever you wanna think, I expressed my opinion.

O'Raghailligh wrote:

Why don't you make a thread about relationship rp instead of trying to start an argument about it here?

No argument. I've said what I wanted.

I'm not the one who brought it up, and I'm not trying to start an argument. I'm trying to figure out why Dead is so down on a certain type of RP that I've never experienced or observed to be as destructive as he seems to be saying.

Liz wrote:

I'm not the one who brought it up, and I'm not trying to start an argument. I'm trying to figure out why Dead is so down on a certain type of RP that I've never experienced or observed to be as destructive as he seems to be saying.

Taking it to PM then.

Grymia wrote:

I don't thiunk that's what Dead meant..

Fair play I'm not entirely sure Dead quite interpreted what Alamut meant rightly either but I could be wrong:

My reckoning is that Alamut means that even in playing the Banites (whom are a malign and evil faction ICly) , the OOC feelings of the players they interact with need to be considered to some measure, but while keeping the actual RP in character and interesting.

That indeed. People forget about to play nice OOC well quite often.

Intrafaction drama is always every faction's greatest enemy, and unfortunately it's something the Banites have had in spades since their inception, especially when it comes to their leaders.

TormakSaber wrote:

Intrafaction drama is always every faction's greatest enemy, and unfortunately it's something the Banites have had in spades since their inception, especially when it comes to their leaders.

This is pretty much what I was trying to say.

TormakSaber wrote:

Intrafaction drama is always every faction's greatest enemy, and unfortunately it's something the Banites have had in spades since their inception, especially when it comes to their leaders.

Having been a leader of the Banites, I actually fully agree with Tormak. I've been part of Banite RP off and on pretty much since I started playing on Amia in 2006 and I can tell you that 85% of the time it's the faction leader that makes or breaks the Banites. Sometimes it's inexperience in faction leadership, sometimes it's a powertrip and sometimes it's just they're not strong enough to lead or just didn't have the willpower to stick it through the hard times, both IC and OOC, myself I fell into the latter.

I think that this time may be a tiny bit different as it's all fresh faces with a handful of experienced players who remember the bad days. To a man (or woman) every one of them is trying to do their best to make sure that past mistakes aren't repeated. I know that Arcane is trying to build them up and I know what his plans are for the very near future. He has my support as a player and person, I hope that things can be different this time but the change of attitude doesn't just stop with the players IN the faction, it involves EVERYONE on Amia to not hold any grudges over something as silly as a player faction. Everyone should just let sleeping dogs lay and let the new Banites try and get their faction up and running without the silly attitudes towards people who're long gone, and how those attitudes could affect the new players trying to have fun.

Remember folks, this server isn't as big as it used to be due to declining player numbers, it's important that those of us left playing Neverwinter Nights continue to try and stick together and help each other keep this great server alive. It's ridiculous attitudes towards something like this faction that drive people away and I feel it's about time that we all acted in a mature manner and remember this is a game and we shouldn't be so attached to a pixel on a screen. We've all put so much into Amia and it's up to us players and well as DMs to make sure that we keep this server going for several more years yet.

So let's all just relax, let the new faction grow and hope that past mistakes aren't made, and support the new players into helping forge their own little bit of a legacy on Amia.

I agree with a lot of what Metalien's said. Almost every single current Banite had little to no ties to the previous ones. So OOC grudges and the like are rather unnecessary, and rather detrimental to the server's progression.

That said, your character can be just as upset, or hold their own grudges. That's fine, and no one's saying it shouldn't. IC is IC-- just make sure it stays that way!

Why would anyone hold OOC grudges against the previous CoB?

Because they see the same trends in current CoB players.

I don't, mind you. I'm just answering the question from what I'm sure is that point of view. Either way, grudging isn't helpful.

My last post could just as easily apply to any new faction being remade out of the ashes of a past, failed one.

Eternal Order, Banites, Cyricists, Lolthite Drow Houses... the list isn't important, but the point is.

The EO neeeeveeer failed!!! We still live!!!

I was making a point with reference to factions universally disliked by the masses. I wasn't saying they're dead, the drow houses certainly aren't.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Players just need to chit chat more on an OOC level, get to know your enemies, and you may actually like being trounced by them. Hell, I used to serenade the old Banite Church on Skype as they chased Gorthod and his buddies down.

Silent2001 wrote:

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Players just need to chit chat more on an OOC level, get to know your enemies, and you may actually like being trounced by them. Hell, I used to serenade the old Banite Church on Skype as they chased Gorthod and his buddies down.

+1

I've always tried to maintain a friendly dialogue with my IC enemy if possible.

Dead wrote:

Why would anyone hold OOC grudges against the previous CoB?

Because some awful things went by. Disappointing but what happens in the past should stay there.

Silent2001 wrote:

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Players just need to chit chat more on an OOC level, get to know your enemies, and you may actually like being trounced by them. Hell, I used to serenade the old Banite Church on Skype as they chased Gorthod and his buddies down.

To the tune of Yakety Sax?

I agree, more OOC dialogue could help people..

Hell, when Tethiri ended up rather running afoul of Beatrix, OOC chatter helped keep things cool afterwards and allowed for a resolution of the situation that was suitable to all involved.

I agree gorthy but I can see why there is discontent oocly. we have systema that promote rivalry and noncooperation. ExMples; faction acceptance has the question: r u a part of other factions on other chars which shouldnt exist. On top o that people can be refused from a faction for any ooc reason. (thats bad business) the way pvp rules work they reward people for not cooperating by calling for dm intervention.

Why do you say that is bad business, for factions to be able to refuse players? The alternative would be forcing them to play with people who will cause trouble for their faction. That's a rule that is the opposite of needing DM Intervention - we have empowered the players to make those judgment calls without us needing to get involved. And they do, mostly successfully, but some of them just fail at seeing the writing on the wall.

My issue is with the line "for any ooc reason" if someone is in a position to be refused from a faction for troublemakong they seem to have bigger issues like why are they allowed on the server

Because in the interests of people having fun, we can forgive them and allow them to find some kind of enjoyment on the server after they have served the terms of their punishment. But players don't necessarily have to play with them or let them in on things if they don't want to. It's just like real life. You screw up, you make it so that people don't like/trust you, they don't want to play with you.

Yossarin wrote:

Because in the interests of people having fun, we can forgive them and allow them to find some kind of enjoyment on the server after they have served the terms of their punishment. But players don't necessarily have to play with them or let them in on things if they don't want to. It's just like real life. You screw up, you make it so that people don't like/trust you, they don't want to play with you.

This is the attitude that causes ooc issues. If you wobt rp with someone because of who they are oocly that os blatant metagame

It doesn't necessarily have to be a matter of troublemaking or screwups. Some styles of RP just aren't compatible with each other. That's not inherently a good thing or a bad thing; it's just a fact. Why shouldn't factions be allowed -- or even encouraged! -- to acknowledge that?

It is, very much so.

But it is a necessary evil and is also human nature, really. Faction leaders, for example, are responsible not merely for the IC aspects of their faction, but the OOC management, as well.

As an example, if I were the faction leader of a faction, and I caught wind that X player had just been removed from another faction for blatantly metagaming them, I would not want that player in my faction to blatantly metagame the players in my faction after that player had served the term of a ban given by the DMs.

To desire anything more purely IC is admirable, I must say, but unrealistic in the grand scheme of things.

Please elaborate on how rp styles do not mesh lizzie.

if someone is forgiven of their transgressions by dms who are the players to say otherwise and metagame people out of rp in a faction

Speaking from my experience with Baneites/players of Baneites, (this is a generalization btw) they seemed to me to be the ones trying to win at all costs, both IC and OOC. I remember when I caught a Baneite with their pants down once, and it reverted into an OOC battle rather than an actual battle where afk+pvp rules were harshly disputed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe a lot of the players who had Baneites left the server afther being defeated, so perhaps they took it things personally. I guess I'm trying to say that many people may have some preconcieved notions about both Baneite characters, and the players who play Baneite characters. I'm hopeful that this new batch of Baneite players will be different that the ones I've had to deal with in the past. Baneites will probably always be disliked from an in-game perspective, but some people may get confused and feel they are being treated poorly OOC as well.

Who they are, is, like I said, human beings who can make their own decisions. Again think of the alternative: a player who has metagamed a faction gets punished by the DMs, is banned for a month, returns, creates a character to join the Banites with the sole intent of using a second character in a good faction to terribly metagame their private information. The Banites go, "NO! He's blatantly trying ot metagame us!"

And then the DMs say, "No, he isn't banned anymore, you have to let that character into your faction. You don't have a choice."

That is like beyond unreasonable.

I'm not sure I can provide examples without feeling like I'm singling people out for scrutiny, which I wouldn't intend. But I think my statement is pretty much intuitively obvious. You can recognize that the world is a big place and that all sorts of people are welcome to do all sorts of things in it, but that doesn't mean that you have to invite everyone who asks into your living room to hang out with on weekends. Some people just gel, and some don't. That's just ths way human brains work, you know?

Yossarin wrote:

Who they are, is, like I said, human beings who can make their own decisions. Again think of the alternative: a player who has metagamed a faction gets punished by the DMs, is banned for a month, returns, creates a character to join the Banites with the sole intent of using a second character in a good faction to terribly metagame their private information. The Banites go, "NO! He's blatantly trying ot metagame us!"

And then the DMs say, "No, he isn't banned anymore, you have to let that character into your faction. You don't have a choice."

That is like beyond unreasonable.

In that example in lime with my initial statement they should not ne on the server. Dms have tge power to retcon stuff anyways to prevent that. At which point the ooc reasoning is merely redundant

Liz's example, Palin, is one where I would say (not with DM'ly authority, but only with DM'ly wisdom) that it might be a good idea to bend and make an effort to admit or play with someone who has a different play style. Because they are trying to do the same thing as you: have fun.

I know what she refers to, though. I think. A faction that has a lot of investment in playing it safe admitting a player who admittedly has fun PvP'ing. Such a player could get the faction into hot water. In those instances, micromanaging the success of the faction might lead you to not wanting to admit that player.

I can see why this is distasteful, though, Palin. It smacks of high school politics. But again, as I pointed out, the alternative is insensible. It is up to the individuals involved to evolve to a better status where they are better able to manage these kinds of personal interactions. No DM and no DM ruling can make that happen.

And metagaming, Palin, does not result in a permanent ban from the server. Nor should it. People make mistakes. But just because the DMs stop persecuting players for it does not mean the players have to. Now interpret my previous example as the player doesn't actually have that intent, but everyone in the faction he's trying to join is convinced he does. The truth is unknowable, so we have to let them rely upon their best judgment.

Though we can sit back and wish they try to be as magnanimous and awesome as we are.

So long as this is the mind of the people cliques will always exist

As an additional thought, it occurs to me that your arguments might be better directed towards faction leaders and major players. It is absolutely essential that the freedom to choose in the first place remain in place, as granted by the DMs.

But how faction leaders use it is what it sounds like you are calling into question moreso than the fact that they simply can. To which return to the old adage, just because you can (in this instance, deny faction membership to a player based upon that player's OOC behavior or any attached stigmas), does not mean that you should. Because you might be missing out, and possibly hurting someone's feelings.

And yeah, you are probably right. But again, to go in the opposite of this freedom is to be waaaaaay too draconian in our micromanagement of how you all interact with one another.

Silent2001 wrote:

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Players just need to chit chat more on an OOC level, get to know your enemies, and you may actually like being trounced by them. Hell, I used to serenade the old Banite Church on Skype as they chased Gorthod and his buddies down.

OOC chat ruins my RP mood. Like... always and totally. Can't say I am a fan of the above statement.

Ill bow out with this. RP isnt about winning. We are all here to craft intricate and involved stories, metagame no matter the form even if it is just you ignoring someones rp works agaimst the collective goal we have of crafting an interactove dynamic serverwode story

Enthusiasm vs disdain for PVP is an example of what I mean, Yoss, but not the whole of it. I'll try to expand a bit...

A while ago, I and a few other players tried to start up a faction of Kozakurans called Mantis Clan. We coordinated somewhat with each other on character background stories, and we all kind of got ourselves on the same page, in terms of what we wanted our RP to feel like: we were going for a sort of gritty, honor-obsessed samurai clan, maybe with a bit of the melodrama of Japanese samurai movies, but definitely with a sense of earthy realism. We were aiming for a specific tone, a specific way we wanted our RP to feel. Should we have been encouraged to welcome anybody into the faction, regardless of whether we believed that they had any understanding of or enthusiasm for the vision we were trying to acheive? Should we have been expected to sabotage a vibe that worked pretty well for us, in order to accommodate players who had no interest in sharing the experience we worked fairly hard to acheive?

I think not. I think the leaders of a faction have the absolute right to create a tone for the faction's RP, and to accept or reject prospective members based on wnether they seem to understand and share that vision.

If that's a "clique," then cliques are an absolute good, and I wouldn't want to play on a server without them.

In that example there is sufficieny ic reason to refuse people what if someone had a prrfect fit char for your.faction but on a diff char was huge on pvp. Where do you draw the line. To me the situation is clear the char fits let him in deal with ic ic. Keep ooc ooc

You draw the line wherever the faction leader wants to. There's no other viable answer.

Exceptional lulz in this thread. Well played.

Also, I think we've sufficiently deviated from the thread topic. And before arguments about that arise: We're no longer talking about the Church of Bane.

Guardian wrote:

Silent2001 wrote:

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Players just need to chit chat more on an OOC level, get to know your enemies, and you may actually like being trounced by them. Hell, I used to serenade the old Banite Church on Skype as they chased Gorthod and his buddies down.

OOC chat ruins my RP mood. Like... always and totally. Can't say I am a fan of the above statement.

I'm in complete agreement of ooc chat ruining good rp, but knowing more of the players on skype at least could lesson any tension that may come from PVP that results between two players for any reason. It's not full proof cause some folks just don't like fair play and always expect to come out on top. Just a fact of life

Liz wrote:

You draw the line wherever the faction leader wants to. There's no other viable answer.

I dont accept that. Too much ooc for me. Dm draconian in my eyes is better than the flexibility you describe in fact its that flexibility that I have issues with as per my originAl statement. I see where you stand entrenched liz so I see no need for elaboration

Honestly tho , dont ya think if a faction is ran by an unfair asshat would prolly eventally fall apart anyhow?

Nobody should need to be OOC friends in order for the experience to be pleasant and fun.

Naivatkal wrote:

We're no longer talking about the Church of Bane.

Lock please

Church of Bane

Who is online