While I appreciate the effort, I think unless a DM goes out of their way to influence it (like Semidi forcibly putting the temple of Bane in Wharftown) there is basically no way that can realistically even happen. Those villages like Guldurand, Wharftown, Uhm, etc, have really, time and time again been attempts at subjugation by evil, namely the Banites, Red Wizards and the HoA, but ultimately the DM's always got cold feet when it came to letting evil hold on to any victory there.
You asked me to define what I perceived a victory; it's not really about winning for me, it's about having a chance to do something other than lose, because realistically evil hasn't won anything since I started playing in late 2008. It's about being able to invest in a story that lasts more than a few months before invariably being shut down by a couple hour operation by people with nothing to lose.
I understand it's fun to have a punching bag, but a real conflict is where both sides have something to keep, or something to lose. Whether we like it or not, the playerbase isn't what it used to be, and the 'happy-go-lucky' evil only really sells to people who haven't spent 6 years failing at it, despite strenuous efforts to just sustain.
Tarkuul, like you said, can't be what people expect, but you seemed skeptical that it could exist at all. I use the term city loosely, it could be an underground structure, much like Underport was. Many concepts can take place, themed after some of the most obvious successful evil in Faerun. Cultists, Zhentil Keep, Bandits, Corrupted people, Gith, Planar, etc, etc. There are plenty ideas out there. The whole paradigm of it not being able to exist is a construct of how people have acclimate to how amia has grown away from evil entirely.
While I appreciate the effort, I think unless a DM goes out of their way to influence it (like Semidi forcibly putting the temple of Bane in Wharftown) there is basically no way that can realistically even happen. Those villages like Guldurand, Wharftown, Uhm, etc, have really, time and time again been attempts at subjugation by evil, namely the Banites, Red Wizards and the HoA, but ultimately the DM's always got cold feet when it came to letting evil hold on to any victory there.
Personally I was thinking of a scripted system that wouldn't require a DM. I'm not sure how I'd manage the details. It could be that they'd have to do something to maintain control monthly, have a PC 'leader', who could be chosen by a number of other PCs backing them perhaps. I'd need some time to figure out the details though.
Quote:
Tarkuul, like you said, can't be what people expect, but you seemed skeptical that it could exist at all. I use the term city loosely, it could be an underground structure, much like Underport was. Many concepts can take place, themed after some of the most obvious successfhe ul evil in Faerun. Cultists, Zhentil Keep, Bandits, Corrupted people, Gith, Planar, etc, etc. There are plenty ideas out there. The whole paradigm of it not being able to exist is a construct of how people have acclimate to how amia has grown away from evil entirely.
I'm not skeptical that such a place can't exist, but what I meant was that I don't think a 'catch all' place for evils will be easy without an extremely powerful entity that keeps everyone in line, which I believe would be an unpopular solution. Each evil place I mentioned has it's own theme, and it also has other evils that it wouldn't get along with. Take for example a druidic cult of Malar, they oppose undead and the presence of outsiders, so they wouldn't get along with Zanshibon or Tarkuul. Very few can tolerate the ax crazy hellball in the streets types because they naturally interfere with what they're doing. Banites, or cultists, etc, can certainly work, but the problem is they're not always very inclusive, which goes against the point of a 'catch all' place.
Edit to add: At the very least, a catch all shouldn't be needed as long as the disparate evil factions have enough places to call home. Uhm was unfortunately a loss in this regard, as was Underport. There's still plenty of themes to choose from though, and Tarkuul is flexible enough as a place to lay low, scheme, and do business, if nothing else.
Personally, a thought of mine was to have the smaller settlements/villages be 'conquerable' as it were, that way it would give PCs things to fight over. I'd leave the large cities untouched with this for now, since they're large places with a lot of power and resources, and their own interests. A village would be less apt to keep factions out, and also help keep PCs contesting over it. Ones that come to mind are: Wharftown, Cordor West, Endir's Point, and Guldorand. Now naturally they'd all have their own tastes and preferences, but it would be more mutable to PC desires. If it could be an automated system, even better. I'm not sure how it would be implemented, but I think it could be done. Mind, this would only really work if the conquering PCs don't just decide to up and raze the place. If this happened, the remaining ones would either be reduced to piles of rubble rather quickly as has happened in the past, or they would have to fort up to the point that the cities are, thus back to square one.
Still, I think that's one of the expectations one should have if making a more ax crazy evil PC, they're naturally going to have trouble getting friends and allies and won't have such resources and will have to rely more on themselves. It's hard to make allies with people who are just as likely to stab you in the back as they are to help with any villainous plans. And if they aren't willing to reign in the ax craziness to cooperate with others for their plans, then they naturally will have to deal with the consequences of that.
I do think there could be more aggression and conquering/subjugation in extant settlements, good PCs would want to liberate and help them, evil PCs conquer and have a base, etc, might help with giving villain PCs more to do if they're dissatisfied working with extant evil cities. Granted, what we likely don't want is the insanity that's happened in the past when people would throw hellballs in the streets of Cordor on a daily basis.
Remember when HoA had Chillwyck and had all these plans for it, but it ended up hitting a brick wall and going nowhere? Yeah, I'm not so sure that anyone really wants to win a couple of dirt fields and hovels by force of arms. Migrants are a scarce resource especially with so little space available in the module, so I don't think starting with a village and building for a city will ever work out. But, maybe we can go somewhere with the thought.
This is very much similar to an idea I proposed in the last fate-of-the-server type discussion: Give us resources to fight and scheme over. It doesn't just have to be a village (which would provide various resources depending on the conquerer's needs) but say, a silver mine, some sort of place of magical power, large artifact fixed in place, trade route, rift into a pocket dimension, goose that lays golden eggs... instead of this loose, laissez-faire system of "Make long posts and click on job system resources to get stuff in the town you have attached yourself to". Connect your (un)natural resources to the world, and the world will come more alive. With the appropriate set-up, conflicts could keep PCs plenty busy without needing constant DM attention. At least after the growing pains... It's that initial push and restructuring, the struggle to keep all of the hungry players appeased once the gates open, that will be most-daunting to our much-diminished and beleaguered DM team.
Still, I think it's worth considering, perhaps to adapt the concept into something that fits Amia better. Ideally it allows a chance for an upstart evil group to make gains (while their enemies are distracted with their own ventures) and use it to build up and fortify something of their own. As well to give people on the other side of the fence something to do. Might not work out, but it's better than leaving things as they are.
This is a good idea, but I don't think there's any way to prevent it from devolving into a PvP-I've got a better build and more epic loot than you scenario.
_________________ Remember when I knew a boxer, baby
This is a good idea, but I don't think there's any way to prevent it from devolving into a PvP-I've got a better build and more epic loot than you scenario.
When you boil it down with opposing group it will all ways turn into PVP.
Years ago when I played WoW I had a 60 twink hunter made just for the battleground for AV (Alterac valley) 40vs40 I loved it because it was non-stop fighting trying to push past and you had to try and take and control locations so you can spawn and such.
But it also had side thing you could do if you were not the best at PvP but still wanted to take part and help your team such as
Unit Upgrades with a item called Armor Scraps found off Players and NPCs inside the map, and that would increase the Damage and HP of your spawn guards...ect Ground Assault would spawn a wave of ground troops if you handed in supplies that you could collect if you controlled a mine (( that you took by killing the NPCs inside)) Cavalry Assault same basic idea as the ground assult but on mounts and you had to go tame the wild wolves (horde) or rams (noob alliance) Aerial Assault Very strong units that would fly around and drop bombs and such if you collected a set around of a type of items droped by Horde/Alliance players and NPCs Ultimate Unit that took a lot of collecting and turning in and around 15 players to summon once they were handed in and then after dicking around the middle of the map for 10 mins it would push forward to help said team break a stalemate and win.
But again I like it because everyone had a roll, the PvE players could still help the team win in a PvP map without having to really fight other players and the PVPers could go kill players.
_________________ ================-<Cory ShadowFlame>-================ Risenlord-Shifter(OMG a Non-Dragon Shifter that can hold his own in PvE)
This is a good idea, but I don't think there's any way to prevent it from devolving into a PvP-I've got a better build and more epic loot than you scenario.
Much of what Cory said, namely that PvP is our only relatively fair mechanic for adjudicating such conflict. Chances are it will be the numbers that decide it - we've got an oldish playerbase with a good sprinkling of game-savvy players. So it will still be weighted in favour of more established groups. But if there are enough "flags" to fight over, no one can really dominate by force of arms - you can't hold all points at once. Besides... there /are/ other ways of handling conflict than PvP. Diplomacy, espionage - obviously Tarkuul-Kohlingen diplomatic relations would be limited, but other groups could manage. And keeping a node secret could occasional work as a source of conflict for shady types.
Perhaps your beef is more - wouldnt this open us more to "all PvP, guard duty and shit, less RP?" and yeah, that may end up sucking. But participating in this game would be strictly optional. It would truly award dedicated work, and yeah you can slack off if you're prepared to pay for it. Sound too draconian? Yeah, perhaps. It sounds like a job and not a game. For me, as it is so hard to find stuff to do without a DM plot to chase, it would still be an improvement. Worth considering anyway.
Diplomatic relations are great, but I think you'll find the path of least resistance is actually just through PvP. There might be some diplomacy and negotiation, but I think it would all be undone by mass amounts of PvP.
That said, I'm not against something like this being added so long as it serves a purpose in city to city relationships. If it's just some Macguffin out in the Mylock Hills for PCs to fight over, there's really nothing substantial there.
_________________ Remember when I knew a boxer, baby
Ah, but just like in real life, if you prove on the political stage to be aggressive and uncompromising esp. to neutral/allied powers, you quickly become seen as a threat that people unite against. This will mainly come to play between established good/neutrals, see: recent Kohl/Wiltun relations. Quite interesting I find. But I agree, encouraging city interactions is good and provides a backdrop for the bad guys to get active and find their niche.
Sorry that its gotten a bit off-topic, though I feel we've already established that evil will not work on Amia without a major paradigm shift. And this is just what I'm talking about.
A city cannot just spawn out of thin air. It has to be a "base" first. It cannot even grow into a village without being powerstomped (yes I just made up that word). The only faction (that I know of) that came even remotely close to being on the way was the Banite faction during the Skull Crags castle. We all know what happened.
A city cannot just spawn out of thin air. It has to be a "base" first. It cannot even grow into a village without being powerstomped (yes I just made up that word). The only faction (that I know of) that came even remotely close to being on the way was the Banite faction during the Skull Crags castle. We all know what happened.
Long story short, the Banites built upon a well defendable coastline, a massive keep that was designed to withstand naval invasions. In the end, there was a long plot to blow it up by basically several factions of the server. They all came and blew it up. Unfortunately, some of the key members of the attacked faction could not participate and obviously the Banites lost. The keep blew up. Obviously no NPC's or any of the alliances the Banites had played a role in this assault.
I really want to see a Banite castle on the server :<
_________________ 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
Whaaaaaaaaaat that symbol was a trap? No freaking way!
_________________ 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
Long story short, the Banites built upon a well defendable coastline, a massive keep that was designed to withstand naval invasions. In the end, there was a long plot to blow it up by basically several factions of the server. They all came and blew it up. Unfortunately, some of the key members of the attacked faction could not participate and obviously the Banites lost. The keep blew up. Obviously no NPC's or any of the alliances the Banites had played a role in this assault.
This is a specific incident and as I said in other topics it was not that simple.
I would add a few fact for this, since it is a heavily biased version in my opinion: - We scheduled a time for that siege two weeks prior on the GD forum, I also did schedule it in private with Gurth's player. - It was not obvious that the keep will go under siege. - The goodly factions alone weren't enough to siege your base. - The banites managed to piss off two neutral factions who didn't want anything to do with the banites until some of their members got killed. This basically tipped the balance.
It didn't have to happen, the reason why it actually did happen was because the banites turned the entire island against themselves.
Not really, because many of them didn't even want to bother with the banites. In fact the War Knights made an open statement regarding the banites and asymmetric warfare, claiming that they would actually aid the banites should the islanders attack the banites with overwhelming force, which Calin considered dishonorable. The banites could have used that doctrine but instead they killed a few war knights. How is it irrelevant then?
If that's correct, that's better than nothing, I guess. I have my doubts, and even if it was true, the Banites and the War Knights had been constantly fighting ... 1, 2, 3. And not on good terms whatsoever.
I appreciated that there was a heads-up, at least. Good tact. The event, I heard it was a mob. Unfortunately, Audrey wasn't able to atttend, due to Dashirun and her getting banned right before the event thanks to documented DM abuse (Ron, who was effective at ensuring the Banites always lost) without reprieve in a timeframe where I could impact the fate of my faction or the base I basically built. Of course I was unbanned right when it ended.
In either case, there's just another reason faction bases that are evil, somewhat open (or even known about), and not plot protected can't work, that's just a drop in the bucket. In truth, that event is no more special than any other, it just killed a huge faction instead of a small one.
If you had the opportunity to be a hero and blow up a castle of evil at zero cost and zero risk and zero consequence, who would even say no, really?
I must admit, reading back a few posts, I am kind of interested in war-like scenarios, as long as permadeathing and all that stuff is off the table, just for plot building purposes. I'm not exactly how that kind of thing would work, though.
Here's some thoughts I've had tumbling around and have shared with some others prior. So far I stand by them and have found them to be true in my experience. Note that these aren't "every case" things, but the problematic trends I've noticed.
► For whatever reason(s) there has been a shift in the attitude of gameplay on Amia, away from collaborative storytelling, and more toward an MMO-style mentality. More Player versus Player than Character versus Character. Anything that interrupts the desired or anticipated result is annoying/frustrating/offensive as a result, seen as a consumption of the gaming time rather than a part of the RP world.
The "why" this has settled in as the more dominant mentality, conscious or otherwise, I would imagine is due to numerous souring encounters on an IC and OOC level, to the point everyone - whether they play good guys, bad guys, or anything in between - no longer has faith, trust, or even really much regard of the other. A lot of bitterness all around. (And don't get me wrong, I understand bitterness.)
Serbiris is right that a paradigm shift is needed. This is something I've mentioned to a few people over the past week since this topic has been going. And unless people in the community are willing to do that, to allow that shift to occur, relax their grip on older misgivings, then it doesn't matter what people talk about here on the forums, or the things they try IC IG - they're doomed to failure because the players have already decided they want nothing to do with it on principle. This is, IMO, the most important aspect of the conversation about Evil (open, sneakret, etc) and Conflict on Amia, and is really the responsibility of every player to reflect upon if we want Amia to get back into a stride. That we have a smaller population than in years past really shouldn't matter; we have more than enough people active in the community to make the world dynamic and vibrant, be we have to not only want to in our rhetoric, but do so in our actions.
► Evil needs to have goals and motivations beyond fighting for the sake of fighting. Otherwise it's simply not compelling, and it has that scent of OOC griefing on it. People who play Bad Guys and Antagonists - of any Alignment - need to understand the role they have taken on in the server ecology, because if you are In It To Win It as a player, then you're only contributing to the problem, to that MMO mentality that pulls us away from the RP and the collaborative storytelling. I saw a lot of sedentary behaviour with antagonist concepts, but it needs to be flexible and adaptive by nature. Antagonists are like predators - they're the healthcare of their environment, and need to be sensitive to that as players, and if something is causing more issues than it is solving, then tactic needs to change. There was a lot of stubbornness to do so, to adapt and - this is huge - to communicate with their fellow players on a level that wasn't OOC antagonistic. OOCly, there was a lot of ego, a lot of righteousness, and not a lot of compassion or really willingness to admit that what was going on or the manner in which it was happening could be in any way wrong. Blame was always shifted upon the "prey", onto the server as a whole, and no blame was retained for themselves - when really, the "blame" needed to be shared by all involved.
► If we are willing, as a whole community, to reflect and be open to a paradigm shift - without any caveats or excuses, without any "but"s or asterisks, then everyone will likely feel a lot better about any kind of consequences that make victory and failure poignant. As it stands, the general attitude about it seems to be "why should I handicap myself when the other side won't" and that goes back to that MMO mentality - winning and losing as players, rather than characters. When, instead, it needs to be looked at more as a whole organism - what does it contribute to the story, to the events unfolding?
Personally, I would like to see more people taking it upon themselves as their own responsibility to accept reasonable consequence regardless of if the "other side" does also. If we all do this for ourselves, then everyone will therefore be doing it. Hard example of what I mean by this - if your character is slain, they stay dead until found and raised. This simple act can produce a lot of RP, as your friends have to hunt you down and then try to figure out what happened from what clues were left (or hidden) by the killer - and it is the responsibility of the killing PC to provide that information to the killed PC. What kind of weapon was used? Did it leave broken bones or lacerations, or burns from a magical source perhaps? Was anything taken from the killed PC, or anything left behind?
Your character being dead and you waiting to be found and raised can sound like major boring shit, sure. For me, it never was, and my characters died a lot, partially because I never knew when we were switching from emote-time to mechanical-clicky-time, and would rather have given the other players the initiative on that because I knew for certain I was good at "losing" so it wasn't a big deal to me. Even if you're not like that, you can look at it this way: you log in with your slain character - they haven't been found yet, so you return to wherever the killer left them, put yourself at Near Death (because the Death screen is annoying as shit) and flop on the ground. From here, what do you do? You basically become a micro-DM, because you get to respond to the questions your allies should start sending you. "Is there any blood on the road where they fought? What direction does it go in?" "Roll a search." Set a DC that seems appropriate given the circumstances, and let that be your guide as your allies either get send off on a wild chase in the wrong direction, or fist bump as they figure it out and follow clues to where your character is. You get to be the master of the mystery in situations like that, and I don't know about the rest of you, but I found it incredibly enjoyable to pull back from my character's head space and become the source of feedback (and maybe some mischievousness) for my buddies. This is assuming that you don't get randomly happened upon by someone else entirely in the meantime, and who knows where the story can go from there.
Certainly, this is contingent upon where and how the character was killed, what was done with the body afterward. There are a lot of viables, so as players we need to be not only flexible, but mindful of the goal, and cooperate with each other OOCly even if there isn't much in the way of OOC talking about it. Once we're not out to win one over each other as players so much, to prove a point or whatever, I think things will naturally equalize to where we don't see the extravagant methods to remove a character from being returned to life as often. Drag them off a few maps over, hide them in a bush, move on, 'cause we got more shit to do, more villainy to accomplish. Now the countdown is on (but this should always be speed of plot, not real time, because we have real lives) to see if the character can be found and raised before they're eaten by wildlife - and that shouldn't be something that makes it impossible to be restored back to life, but it should be more costly. After the first time that happens, they're probably be looking out for each other a lot closer. Predators make the prey bond and be stronger, prey make the predators more clever. Too hard to strike at the prey now that they're more on guard? The change tactic, be clever. But most importantly, have a goal beyond killing the characters. That should be a means, not the end, for antagonists.
This goes for the Good Guys as well, when they've taken down a Bad Guy. I see a lot of ignoring of what the capital G in that Good Alignment should mean, and a good portion of the Good characters I saw were really more Neutral, or even downright Evil themselves. Morality isn't always easy and it's not supposed to be. Where it's ultimately Evil's role to be eventually defeated, they should always be more powerful because they aren't fettered by the same morality - they can gain more and gain it faster because of that. Good has it harder, because they have to balance action with ethics. This is another thing that seems to have been disregarded by the server at large in favor of that OOC winning, and another thing that should really warrant reflection.
Now, there are thousands of variables and situations and rebukes for all this. But what if... but what about when...
I want everyone to make a concerted effort to look beyond that, because of course there will be. That is not the core of the issue, however. They're just examples. Don't get side-tracked by the minutiae, mine or anyone else's. Look at the core of what is being said and then look at yourself and decide where you are. If you find that you are healthy and fair in your attitude about it, that you aren't holding on to grudges and hindering yourself with bitterness, then move on to the next step - consider what you can do to help contribute to the health of the rest of the community. What can you do to encourage the type of RP environment we all should be able to have in your gameplay, in your actions, and not just your words? Can you do more than you're already doing? Do it.
And now, I've already said too much, and I'll see you IG.♥
Thanks Letum for the good read, I decided because of it, I need to take a more active part in the discussions of Amia again, I was falling for a greater extent into apathy toward the community aspect of this server, mostly because I too was catching wind of that pulse of the MMO shift that is moving away from Characterization. I liked this :
LetumLux wrote:
For whatever reason(s) there has been a shift in the attitude of gameplay on Amia, away from collaborative storytelling, and more toward an MMO-style mentality. More Player versus Player than Character versus Character. Anything that interrupts the desired or anticipated result is annoying/frustrating/offensive as a result, seen as a consumption of the gaming time rather than a part of the RP world.
The "why" this has settled in as the more dominant mentality, conscious or otherwise, I would imagine is due to numerous souring encounters on an IC and OOC level, to the point everyone - whether they play good guys, bad guys, or anything in between - no longer has faith, trust, or even really much regard of the other. A lot of bitterness all around. (And don't get me wrong, I understand bitterness.)
Serbiris is right that a paradigm shift is needed. This is something I've mentioned to a few people over the past week since this topic has been going. And unless people in the community are willing to do that, to allow that shift to occur, relax their grip on older misgivings, then it doesn't matter what people talk about here on the forums, or the things they try IC IG - they're doomed to failure because the players have already decided they want nothing to do with it on principle. This is, IMO, the most important aspect of the conversation about Evil (open, sneakret, etc) and Conflict on Amia, and is really the responsibility of every player to reflect upon if we want Amia to get back into a stride.
I think part of the problem I have been experiencing ICly is the need to constantly fetch conflict and RP, but also, maintaining a consistent singular-ness with my one character, who is sometimes a hero and sometimes a villain. The biggest trouble for her is that she has taken great wide-steps across the server and put her hands into too many cookiejars, or so I have been scolded for before, in terms of trying to get things accomplished or actualized with this character? Does she want to rule the world? Does she want revenge? What exactly is that witch doing? I can speak for other fellow bad-asses in the server whom I mutually respect for their dedication to their characters and to their uniqueness of persona by saying we grow accustomed to downtime, in the world. The world, if I am understanding this shift, IS moving more toward the MMO corner of things honoring I suppose, more group-based involvement with plot-chasing activities that cater to a conceptual mystery, or an unanswered civic stoicism from the current DMs. The ennui we are experiencing lately, at least for me, has taken me to create know-nothing alts with no real value but to try and provoke action out of others, literally, I treat my alts like personal NPCs just to try and shake up the usual roadway crowds from talking about things other than sweet-talking each other in whispers or talking about how fat So-and-So is getting or he said she said. This is not what I wanted to become nor what I wanted to see happen to my playtime. My attention should be singularly on my main and for others I hope they hold the same value to Characterization, but I feel people are growing tired of the social atmosphere, but in irony, are trapped in that continuum when they do make an alt, and say, RP with the same exact players who also created a said alt.
This is a great failure in my opinion, and not how we should be integrating our community into these 'cliques'. Do plots help? Yes, so as long as it caters not to one target audience. It is natural for those involved in a plot to wish to control its factors in its party's favor. That's natural, but an effect of running after the DM's gems. Do City Initiatives help. Yes. But they should be done for your character's specific goals or needs, and NOT to stay on the same bus with your buddies. We have a very bad case of buddy system going on right now in the community, and I am finding that to be a reason why nothing is happening in terms of faction development, character development, or means of collaboration.
You know, OOCly people might not want to RP with someone because they personally don't like their style of RP, and this is upsetting. They would prefer to stay in their circle of comfort without conflict and continue working independent to their own circle of IC friends, and try to keep things on a smaller scale, factioning, really, and maybe it is our faults for leaning too heavily in support of faction creation. The world is made dynamic by its variety of playerbase and crowds, but why must they be so exclusive from one another? In my mind's eye, what Ostland does should directly effect something in Kohlingen or Wiltun, or whatever, these are just example names.
What can players do to help? Be more open to each other. Like children on the playground, maybe there is something another character has or can do that you need. Maybe they've put you in a tough spot and you need to actually confront them or begrudgingly accept their lead; whatever. Look for an alternative that isn't 'bully-mode' to moving the story ahead; but more importantly, put your character's needs before your own and others.
I had a recent conflict come to me on a sub-ooc level about a character not wanting another character to assist in a matter. I pitted them together on purpose. This was sort of talked to one another on the OOC level before the attention was actually made apparent ICly that they would be working together, and as a result, they seemed to settle the issue OOCly. The result was that one of the characters without much reason or cause decided to back out of the plan to 'prevent conflict'. I had mixed feelings about this but wanted them to make their own choice, ICly the witch explained why it would be important to have someone along anyway, to try to create an avenue where this could work out, but the 'social awkwardness' seem to trump both characters willingness to do the job. I think this kind of thing is happening a lot more than I have personally witnessed, and it needs to stop. We need to put on our director hats, or our actor hats, and use them more responsbly for our characters. It is a good enough reason to tell that person, "This is precisely what my character /would/ do, despite that they are working with your character."
We preach we need more evil aka conflict, but the playerbase has shown me more and more that they hate conflict, they hate leaving their comfort zones, and to be quite frank, sometimes I feel you're all a bunch of wusses when it comes to character-character integration. It is getting to the point, where I almost feel DMs need to step in and have every character be by Request only.
Then, put a spin on their player's intentions by being the Sorting Hat. "No Bill, you aren't going to go play an elf in Hufflepuff with elf Tina... You're going to have to play an elf and work in Slitheryn with Muck the demilich."
Culture clash is the best thing to keep intrigue and parties high in interest. Cordor in its bustle activity is a great example. Everyone wants a slice, so they forged sort of a working manner with one another. Did it last? Not really. But the conflict stood for a good long time, long enough to consider Cordor two cities now instead of one. And that's great.
What can DMs do to help? So let's say that the boarders that have been drawn are inevitable boarders. I think that's natural. Kohlingen has walls. Tarkuul has walls. Ostland has walls. Wiltun has walls. Etc. etc. etc. Okay, but then, let us play the sky that shines over all of it. Say something happens in Brogendenstein, a beast is slain and it damages the mines. The dorfs are exhausted by this fight but are glad that they may rest. But then, look what a travesty this has on the production of iron. Our mine is collapsed...
Meanwhile, Ostland gets wind of this lack of iron, and tension rises within its boarders as a direct influence. People start whispering and knowing that metal will be on shortage again soon, time for some buggers to attempt a coup of those pesky Red knights! But then the Red Knights successfully settle the coup. Villagers are killed.
Wiltun hears about this and sends an emissary to inquire about why these men are killing citizens. Cause. Effect. Cause. Effect. Cause. Effect.
These things should not be isolated by faction or by DM for that matter, the whole region should shake to an extent. I don't know how well DMs integrate their stories or details but with a team as big as this, they need to if they do not. I think in the past, I remember something like asking, "Hey can you help me @ThisLocation, my character wants to try something" and often times, the result I was getting was, "That's "DM 5's Area and Plot" I don't want to mess with it."
It should be entirely fluid for any DM to take on a settlement so as long as the lore is spun seamlessly. That is to say, the DMs have resource and form to be able to pick up an NPC not 'owned' by another DM so that the availibility of characterization and continuation is always ready for them to do so. I have always believed this, and I don't believe there should be one DM for every faction, this is why so much bottlenecking has taken place in the past. One DM may need a break, then without fail, another can sit in the chair while they're away. In the very least, attention and effect due to other DM's activities should also be at the perview of the DM on deck.
An example is that, say we keep this DM by location deal, and one DM tromps the most nerfarious stampede of wildebeasts sent by Horace the Dark Lord to take revenge on Basuc Paladin A at Bendir Dale. Mighty that he is, Basic Paladin A survives this attempt and goes off on his quest to stop Horace the Dark Lord. DM on deck has something to work with now. The Wildebeast famine has greatly ruined the outer wall of Bendir Dale and their balistas are broken!. With winter coming, the harvest has been effected, there shall be no pie to feed the children and trolls find this junction favorable and surprise attack some of the roadwardens in a scarce attempt to make off with their oxen.
^ Don't use this plot. It is terrible. But the idea again is based on cause-effect, and associate cooperation.
It takes a creativity to know when to step in and when not to step in too, by no means do I think DMs are senseless to the radius of control of others, but I think it should be considered seriously. The same can be said for PC characters too.
How often does PvP actually happen now? I was under the impression it was increasingly rare.
@Letum - It is my belief that if a system goes too far one way, it makes it difficult to want to CvC, let alone PvP or anything else for that matter because it creates a paradigm where only one character, side, or whatever the scope is, has something at stake. In this scenario, the players who feel as if they can do only but fail will move on and do something else, whether it's a different game, or abandoning the idea to involve themselves in bigger schemes that present themselves with high probability of repeated failures. They also could just play neutral so they don't have to deal with all of their RP collapsing on a timer, regardless of winning or losing.
The server made areas far more important in the last few years, or as Aiseth has rightly said -- things honoring; most areas adjusting to be whatever the whim of the player base. Now, with a lot of the RP and things I've seen, the "norm" seems to be to reflect progress of a character in the areas they are working on. I think as long as the city faction paradigm dominates most RP, the same opportunity should exist for evil players, as currently, it obviously does not. The lack of success and continuance of demolished ambition underlines that. As you've said correctly, many people have detached themselves from the idea of death, and perhaps don't take it seriously. There's also those who've attached themselves too much to death, and will do anything to avoid it entirely because of the aforementioned mentality regarding one-sided failure. Both extremes are in stark contrast to what's worked so well in the past and what we should work to once again obtain. The entire concept of "things honoring" and "mmo" were introduced when the people who routinely would create conflict stopped because of a variety of reasons.
But even if the shift happens, the problem which is being outlined in this thread will continue to be one, as it has been one for a very long time before the shift you've noticed. If I had to guess what happened -- people got bored. Nobody was creating conflict, so they just talk about things in their comfort zone and don't care about anything larger, because there is nothing dictating otherwise. Admittedly, the scope of my own RP is much smaller, and that's mostly a product of being part of the system I just described.
As an aside, somewhere down the line, several DM's kept reinforcing that "doing x,y,z will make you eligible for permadeath." Even for some players, a simple conflict does that. That really doesn't solve any problems, in my opinion, it just takes away the likely chance that they will stir the pot, and instead sit at home and stew with their friends instead. It is my belief that having an assigned risk of permadeath or faction base destruction is a fallacy. Therewithin you see special races getting preferential treatment based seemingly on alignment, and subsequently the inconsistency across the existing types. We see devil PC's get permanently killed without prior warning of severity, for trivial involvement in a silly evil plot that failed anyways, and we see other PC's with no consequences whatsoever, despite facts which would suggest the same, if not otherwise. An obvious example is a faithless PC being ruled by the DM's to have no consequences for their death. A recent example being that heroes can fight against a near-god-chronomancer head on, and receive a pat on the back for their efforts, while having no expectation of lasting consequences when they fail. Further, the gap is noticeable in that they build behind invincible walls, and in the face of a several-year insanely evil story-arc, Cordor came out a better city than it ever was and it hasn't even been a year. Because of this heavy lean which many people refuse to see, instead of having a realm that is quantified by the events and occurrences of the plot itself; which would be entirely natural and more story building, you leave an entire alignment shellshocked and not willing to participate with others, or as you know it -- secret evil.
So how does what I said measure up to the concept of taking a step back when you die? If you create a world where the penalty for dying is too high, nobody will risk dying, and when it happens, people will panic and not want to accept anything that comes with it. Most of the players now even invest DC and countless hours into making their primary character even more believable, so it's no surprise that they don't want to start over. With secret evil not contributing to conflict RP at all, it's no surprise that Bendir Dale's average conversation is about how people have gained weight, and who loves who, and this and that. Nobody wants to RP out of their comfort zone, and honestly; with how it's set up, rightfully so.
My hope is that by creating this place, evil at least, can fine a commune more common to plot amongst themselves, or against eachother, without all feeling the need to be stashed away in a safe room with only the players in their "comfort zone". Admittedly, I can't fix the "mmo" phenomenon with that. If you want to fix that, fix the death system so nobody is afraid to create the conflict this server so desperately needs. Nobody should feel that by giving the server the conflict RP it needs, that it will then get cheapshotted in a way that screws them over, and currently that's the status quo. Amia was not designed to be a DM-plot-storymode. Amia was not designed to have 95% of the playerbase be neutral. In my opinion, Amia was designed with the idea that conflict would dictate the story line, and the DM's would add their own plots on top of those. If you don't believe me, go read the history of Amia. Just look at how much of that is devoted to the Banites. That is what Amia lost.
_________________ a.k.a. Audrey Zinata
Last edited by RaveN on Tue, Nov 10 2015, 15:48 PM, edited 1 time in total.
Thanks Letum for the good read, I decided because of it, I need to take a more active part in the discussions of Amia again, I was falling for a greater extent into apathy toward the community aspect of this server, mostly because I too was catching wind of that pulse of the MMO shift that is moving away from Characterization. I liked this :
LetumLux wrote:
For whatever reason(s) there has been a shift in the attitude of gameplay on Amia, away from collaborative storytelling, and more toward an MMO-style mentality. More Player versus Player than Character versus Character. Anything that interrupts the desired or anticipated result is annoying/frustrating/offensive as a result, seen as a consumption of the gaming time rather than a part of the RP world.
The "why" this has settled in as the more dominant mentality, conscious or otherwise, I would imagine is due to numerous souring encounters on an IC and OOC level, to the point everyone - whether they play good guys, bad guys, or anything in between - no longer has faith, trust, or even really much regard of the other. A lot of bitterness all around. (And don't get me wrong, I understand bitterness.)
Serbiris is right that a paradigm shift is needed. This is something I've mentioned to a few people over the past week since this topic has been going. And unless people in the community are willing to do that, to allow that shift to occur, relax their grip on older misgivings, then it doesn't matter what people talk about here on the forums, or the things they try IC IG - they're doomed to failure because the players have already decided they want nothing to do with it on principle. This is, IMO, the most important aspect of the conversation about Evil (open, sneakret, etc) and Conflict on Amia, and is really the responsibility of every player to reflect upon if we want Amia to get back into a stride.
I think part of the problem I have been experiencing ICly is the need to constantly fetch conflict and RP, but also, maintaining a consistent singular-ness with my one character, who is sometimes a hero and sometimes a villain. The biggest trouble for her is that she has taken great wide-steps across the server and put her hands into too many cookiejars, or so I have been scolded for before, in terms of trying to get things accomplished or actualized with this character? Does she want to rule the world? Does she want revenge? What exactly is that witch doing? I can speak for other fellow bad-asses in the server whom I mutually respect for their dedication to their characters and to their uniqueness of persona by saying we grow accustomed to downtime, in the world. The world, if I am understanding this shift, IS moving more toward the MMO corner of things honoring I suppose, more group-based involvement with plot-chasing activities that cater to a conceptual mystery, or an unanswered civic stoicism from the current DMs. The ennui we are experiencing lately, at least for me, has taken me to create know-nothing alts with no real value but to try and provoke action out of others, literally, I treat my alts like personal NPCs just to try and shake up the usual roadway crowds from talking about things other than sweet-talking each other in whispers or talking about how fat So-and-So is getting or he said she said. This is not what I wanted to become nor what I wanted to see happen to my playtime. My attention should be singularly on my main and for others I hope they hold the same value to Characterization, but I feel people are growing tired of the social atmosphere, but in irony, are trapped in that continuum when they do make an alt, and say, RP with the same exact players who also created a said alt.
This is a great failure in my opinion, and not how we should be integrating our community into these 'cliques'. Do plots help? Yes, so as long as it caters not to one target audience. It is natural for those involved in a plot to wish to control its factors in its party's favor. That's natural, but an effect of running after the DM's gems. Do City Initiatives help. Yes. But they should be done for your character's specific goals or needs, and NOT to stay on the same bus with your buddies. We have a very bad case of buddy system going on right now in the community, and I am finding that to be a reason why nothing is happening in terms of faction development, character development, or means of collaboration.
You know, OOCly people might not want to RP with someone because they personally don't like their style of RP, and this is upsetting. They would prefer to stay in their circle of comfort without conflict and continue working independent to their own circle of IC friends, and try to keep things on a smaller scale, factioning, really, and maybe it is our faults for leaning too heavily in support of faction creation. The world is made dynamic by its variety of playerbase and crowds, but why must they be so exclusive from one another? In my mind's eye, what Ostland does should directly effect something in Kohlingen or Wiltun, or whatever, these are just example names.
What can players do to help? Be more open to each other. Like children on the playground, maybe there is something another character has or can do that you need. Maybe they've put you in a tough spot and you need to actually confront them or begrudgingly accept their lead; whatever. Look for an alternative that isn't 'bully-mode' to moving the story ahead; but more importantly, put your character's needs before your own and others.
I had a recent conflict come to me on a sub-ooc level about a character not wanting another character to assist in a matter. I pitted them together on purpose. This was sort of talked to one another on the OOC level before the attention was actually made apparent ICly that they would be working together, and as a result, they seemed to settle the issue OOCly. The result was that one of the characters without much reason or cause decided to back out of the plan to 'prevent conflict'. I had mixed feelings about this but wanted them to make their own choice, ICly the witch explained why it would be important to have someone along anyway, to try to create an avenue where this could work out, but the 'social awkwardness' seem to trump both characters willingness to do the job. I think this kind of thing is happening a lot more than I have personally witnessed, and it needs to stop. We need to put on our director hats, or our actor hats, and use them more responsbly for our characters. It is a good enough reason to tell that person, "This is precisely what my character /would/ do, despite that they are working with your character."
We preach we need more evil aka conflict, but the playerbase has shown me more and more that they hate conflict, they hate leaving their comfort zones, and to be quite frank, sometimes I feel you're all a bunch of wusses when it comes to character-character integration. It is getting to the point, where I almost feel DMs need to step in and have every character be by Request only.
Then, put a spin on their player's intentions by being the Sorting Hat. "No Bill, you aren't going to go play an elf in Hufflepuff with elf Tina... You're going to have to play an elf and work in Slitheryn with Muck the demilich."
Culture clash is the best thing to keep intrigue and parties high in interest. Cordor in its bustle activity is a great example. Everyone wants a slice, so they forged sort of a working manner with one another. Did it last? Not really. But the conflict stood for a good long time, long enough to consider Cordor two cities now instead of one. And that's great.
What can DMs do to help? So let's say that the boarders that have been drawn are inevitable boarders. I think that's natural. Kohlingen has walls. Tarkuul has walls. Ostland has walls. Wiltun has walls. Etc. etc. etc. Okay, but then, let us play the sky that shines over all of it. Say something happens in Brogendenstein, a beast is slain and it damages the mines. The dorfs are exhausted by this fight but are glad that they may rest. But then, look what a travesty this has on the production of iron. Our mine is collapsed...
Meanwhile, Ostland gets wind of this lack of iron, and tension rises within its boarders as a direct influence. People start whispering and knowing that metal will be on shortage again soon, time for some buggers to attempt a coup of those pesky Red knights! But then the Red Knights successfully settle the coup. Villagers are killed.
Wiltun hears about this and sends an emissary to inquire about why these men are killing citizens. Cause. Effect. Cause. Effect. Cause. Effect.
These things should not be isolated by faction or by DM for that matter, the whole region should shake to an extent. I don't know how well DMs integrate their stories or details but with a team as big as this, they need to if they do not. I think in the past, I remember something like asking, "Hey can you help me @ThisLocation, my character wants to try something" and often times, the result I was getting was, "That's "DM 5's Area and Plot" I don't want to mess with it."
It should be entirely fluid for any DM to take on a settlement so as long as the lore is spun seamlessly. That is to say, the DMs have resource and form to be able to pick up an NPC not 'owned' by another DM so that the availibility of characterization and continuation is always ready for them to do so. I have always believed this, and I don't believe there should be one DM for every faction, this is why so much bottlenecking has taken place in the past. One DM may need a break, then without fail, another can sit in the chair while they're away. In the very least, attention and effect due to other DM's activities should also be at the perview of the DM on deck.
An example is that, say we keep this DM by location deal, and one DM tromps the most nerfarious stampede of wildebeasts sent by Horace the Dark Lord to take revenge on Basuc Paladin A at Bendir Dale. Mighty that he is, Basic Paladin A survives this attempt and goes off on his quest to stop Horace the Dark Lord. DM on deck has something to work with now. The Wildebeast famine has greatly ruined the outer wall of Bendir Dale and their balistas are broken!. With winter coming, the harvest has been effected, there shall be no pie to feed the children and trolls find this junction favorable and surprise attack some of the roadwardens in a scarce attempt to make off with their oxen.
^ Don't use this plot. It is terrible. But the idea again is based on cause-effect, and associate cooperation.
It takes a creativity to know when to step in and when not to step in too, by no means do I think DMs are senseless to the radius of control of others, but I think it should be considered seriously. The same can be said for PC characters too.
Well written!
_________________ -Ryoko I’ve been playing at a new fun sever!
Joined: 10 Nov 2015 Location: WHY SHOULD I TELL YOU WHERE WHEN YOU'RE ABOUT TO DIE?! NGAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!
This is bait.
That said, I'm not above taking bait, so I'll bat. Humor my thesis for a moment - even if it's a little late in the conversation (I've only read a few of the many text walls):
That said, I'm very new to Amia. Copiously new.
I've been here for a good week-3 weeks casually, and managed a level 30 already. Have 2 Dreamcoins - so, obviously enough, I've not given the server much of a browse.
-but personally, to me, Amia's best strength right now is also its greatest weakness:
It's a sandbox. Almost entirely one, in fact; there's almost nothing pre-emphasized about the state of isle affairs, and nothing really evidently 'going on' that the IG view conveys (Having boards OOG too, which I'll need to get used to after being an Arelith junky, is the #HardLyf :c). There's relatively few factions, a decidedly lax presence of any player-based initiative toward supplementing/driving settlements…
It's pretty clearly a DM run thing, in its majority; and the rest is basically PvPing or chatting, which doesn't make for immersive conflict -NOR- anything that can ever lead to inclusive reply, and thus the server fails to sustain an evil encouraging environment.
Generally speaking, it's flat. It 'feels' ineffectual, non consequential, and I've not been able to really view any settlement as anything but "places to go to sell and buy stuff" - or hubs for RP with groups that would've done it the same anywhere else. This is as much a player side issue as it is a DM one, mind, but as I'm shooting for bluntness: If the server wants more evil, it's going to need to break the "still life" mentality of its surroundings, since very few characters of any alignment are likely to change their status quo to their approach without something to encourage them away from it. Ergo, only by giving more for all alignments/involved players in any given area to work with do conditions #3, #4, and #1 get met.
I'm pro to Kobra's suggestion to add stuff for Evil to more identifiably act against/take over; but perhaps the server could also try to incentivize more diverse concepts. Dash a temple here and there of a few more deities than the stereotypical ones.
Another thing worth considering is making the settlements more mechanically tangible in some manner, or find some means to expand the meaningful influence a player can have on them. There's no way to affect any of them without filling a request (perfectly fine! But it removes the Shia LaBeouff approach that makes the best villainy); and - speaking frankly, if you want evil to do much more than demolish their new toy when they get it, there'd ought to be something to do with that new toy.
The above said, if there's any way to amend the issue of 'Shadow Establishment' that doesn't deliberately godgame; it'd give evils much more to do while no DMs are around beyond PvP and send various pending requests. Amia is a very ideal environment for all other mechanical purposes, in terms of being ideal for newly arising evil threats and the very same sandbox mentioned above (I.e: It's easy to shake things up right now, or would be, because nobody's really expecting the Spanish Inquisition). With more diversity arises more fun, thus more incentive to expand the forms conflict takes and the amount of instances where it occurs; since I'm currently having a hard time taking the discreet evil approach - there's relatively little to worm into.
On that note, I'm actually enjoying this place so far~! I've had nothing but positive interaction with players and DMs of yet, so I believe I'll stick around.
_________________
*So, i've got a question for ya. *do you think even the worst person can change…? *that everyone can be a good person, if they just try? *all right. *well, here's a better question *do you wanna have a bad time
I myself would like to see a town rise up on the fringes of civilization that is a chaotic place of outlaws, outlawed religions and various criminals. Would be cool to see what would arise out of such a soup pot with Banites, followers of the Gods of Fury, Cyricists as well as humanoids, drow and other normally evil races getting together.
_________________ Ciroc Kilgrave: The patriarch of a family of covetors. Mournal the Guardian: A loyal killer for a mad mistress. Kuurg the Vandal: An inspiration to savage glory.
I myself would like to see a town rise up on the fringes of civilization that is a chaotic place of outlaws, outlawed religions and various criminals. Would be cool to see what would arise out of such a soup pot with Banites, followers of the Gods of Fury, Cyricists as well as humanoids, drow and other normally evil races getting together.
Nothing new. It happened in the past. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=52315 If you put a Cyricist and a Banite in the same room you don't need a paladin.
I myself would like to see a town rise up on the fringes of civilization that is a chaotic place of outlaws, outlawed religions and various criminals. Would be cool to see what would arise out of such a soup pot with Banites, followers of the Gods of Fury, Cyricists as well as humanoids, drow and other normally evil races getting together.
Cyricists are often unseen enemies in that they are great liars but back to point. The town would be a more permanent place. Ideally no political or economic purpose for the big powers like Cordor or Wiltun to care about.
_________________ Ciroc Kilgrave: The patriarch of a family of covetors. Mournal the Guardian: A loyal killer for a mad mistress. Kuurg the Vandal: An inspiration to savage glory.
Building an evil faction base that is out in the open is a bad idea. I really liked the sanctuary underground Cordor when it existed, and I'm sad that it vanished because it had potential- even if nobody really saw it to be utilized the way it should have been. The Horsemen occupied a large base out in the frozen north, but that got demolished, Baneite fort was destroyed by everyone on the island- even my evil Cyracist character that I had back then was there fighting along with the goodies when it fell. The Coalition of Evil was just as good of an idea as it was a bad idea, and infighting occurred (should I apologize for that?). Tarkuul is off the table for numerous reasons; most should be obvious. I have some ideas, but I would want to keep them to myself in the hopes that this desired evil area could come about. It comes down to this- any new evil faction/base/city needs to have a means to preserve itself, and that means the characters and players involved need to be creative and intelligent if such an endeavor is to be carried out. Longevity should be the goal, not direct conflict with everyone right out of the gate. I'm all for it if anyone else is.
I want to throw my two cents in, but since I'm bran new I'll keep my post about as short as my time on server.
Evil would be a lot more effective if it wasn't running around with scythes and skull masks summoning skeletons and actually looked like a faction normal people might throw in with.
Well, I'm super late to this conversation, but after reading this thread, I can't not comment. For any that don't know, or remember, I played as one of the PCs who founded the "Celestial Stairway," which I understand disbanded soon after I left. I will begin with: Did we have players who acted immaturely at times? Sure, We did. Did others, and our opposition? Yes. But for the most part we tried policing ourselves, to the point of even having to remove some players from the faction due to their actions, after warnings; and we even tried opened a public forum for feedback, trying to find out what people wanted. We were a faction without a united faith, or cause, other than to see the advancement of evil itself, a bit meta, admittedly, but it was born of a goal to try to do just this:
Faded Wings wrote:
I think evil needs a "CITY" (or even CASTLE) that is NOT created by a faction.
We used the IC justification of knowing, that while we differed wildly in faith and dogma, and would normally not care for one another, or even be at one another's throats, that none of us could stand alone against the much more prominent good aligned settlements. At first it all began downhill, being told that our two initial choices on plots of land we couldn't use because some distant DM plot intended to put it to use for "reasons". We still pushed, albeit discouraged, for awhile trying to come up with another hook. Eventually pessimism set in and we were talking about simply saying screw it. This is about when a Sam stepped in to aid us, and to her credit, she did a remarkable job. We went back to our original plan of establishing first a defensive fort, and later we had plans, and ideas for building a full settlement, where evil could flourish and grow. And honestly, I think had we stuck to it, we would have succeeded. We had missteps, sure, both IC and OOC; but we tried learning from them, and pressed on. So why did I leave, before completing it? Well, honestly, for all the success we gained, the OOC drama was becoming too much. Despite the best efforts of both friends, players, and our DM, it began feeling more like a chore, and the fun of playing was literally being drained. And, if a game is not fun, I see no reason to play it. For every amazing event we had, we received more flak and opposition on a meta level. Now, I do not mean just meta-gaming knowledge, in fact there was little of that near my end of playing. I more refer to the logistics, time, and massive amount of effort (Both IC, and OOC), for something seemingly months and months away to even begin. Perhaps it was laziness, perhaps it would have went away in time. But frankly, trying to build something from nothing, with nothing else to do in the meantime is amazingly dull to me. This, combined with the general attitudes of "you're doing it wrong," or outright hostility from a minor (yet vocal) bit of the playerbase, and still recoiling from the much more dissatisfying and tainted welcome we received, drew me to the point of giving up. The fact that even our DM seemed to be getting weary, only amplified the issue
So there it is, we failed, even with talented DM support. We didn't fail, however, because completing our goals was intrinsically impossible. We were worn down by outside influences, and general hostility; which might even be a more pathetic, sad view of what the server has become. Evil, open evil, can succeed through enough determination, and DM help. Building the magical, self sustaining evil town is not impossible, but it is entirely unrealistic, and will continue to be, until the aforementioned MMO, conservative, and clique attitudes either change, or are silenced.
Heh.. if you think we can't have people from outside of amia take place in the plot, how do you explain extraneous plot devices like the Black Caravan just blowing up our temple, then almost the one replacing that? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... aravan%27d There's even an Urban Dictionary entry.
Heh.. if you think we can't have people from outside of amia take place in the plot, how do you explain extraneous plot devices like the Black Caravan just blowing up our temple, then almost the one replacing that? http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... aravan%27d There's even an Urban Dictionary entry.
Well, I'm super late to this conversation, but after reading this thread, I can't not comment. For any that don't know, or remember, I played as one of the PCs who founded the "Celestial Stairway," which I understand disbanded soon after I left. I will begin with: Did we have players who acted immaturely at times? Sure, We did. Did others, and our opposition? Yes. But for the most part we tried policing ourselves, to the point of even having to remove some players from the faction due to their actions, after warnings; and we even tried opened a public forum for feedback, trying to find out what people wanted. We were a faction without a united faith, or cause, other than to see the advancement of evil itself, a bit meta, admittedly, but it was born of a goal to try to do just this:
Faded Wings wrote:
I think evil needs a "CITY" (or even CASTLE) that is NOT created by a faction.
We used the IC justification of knowing, that while we differed wildly in faith and dogma, and would normally not care for one another, or even be at one another's throats, that none of us could stand alone against the much more prominent good aligned settlements. At first it all began downhill, being told that our two initial choices on plots of land we couldn't use because some distant DM plot intended to put it to use for "reasons". We still pushed, albeit discouraged, for awhile trying to come up with another hook. Eventually pessimism set in and we were talking about simply saying screw it. This is about when a Sam stepped in to aid us, and to her credit, she did a remarkable job. We went back to our original plan of establishing first a defensive fort, and later we had plans, and ideas for building a full settlement, where evil could flourish and grow. And honestly, I think had we stuck to it, we would have succeeded. We had missteps, sure, both IC and OOC; but we tried learning from them, and pressed on. So why did I leave, before completing it? Well, honestly, for all the success we gained, the OOC drama was becoming too much. Despite the best efforts of both friends, players, and our DM, it began feeling more like a chore, and the fun of playing was literally being drained. And, if a game is not fun, I see no reason to play it. For every amazing event we had, we received more flak and opposition on a meta level. Now, I do not mean just meta-gaming knowledge, in fact there was little of that near my end of playing. I more refer to the logistics, time, and massive amount of effort (Both IC, and OOC), for something seemingly months and months away to even begin. Perhaps it was laziness, perhaps it would have went away in time. But frankly, trying to build something from nothing, with nothing else to do in the meantime is amazingly dull to me. This, combined with the general attitudes of "you're doing it wrong," or outright hostility from a minor (yet vocal) bit of the playerbase, and still recoiling from the much more dissatisfying and tainted welcome we received, drew me to the point of giving up. The fact that even our DM seemed to be getting weary, only amplified the issue
So there it is, we failed, even with talented DM support. We didn't fail, however, because completing our goals was intrinsically impossible. We were worn down by outside influences, and general hostility; which might even be a more pathetic, sad view of what the server has become. Evil, open evil, can succeed through enough determination, and DM help. Building the magical, self sustaining evil town is not impossible, but it is entirely unrealistic, and will continue to be, until the aforementioned MMO, conservative, and clique attitudes either change, or are silenced.
I totally agree.
_________________ Ciroc Kilgrave: The patriarch of a family of covetors. Mournal the Guardian: A loyal killer for a mad mistress. Kuurg the Vandal: An inspiration to savage glory.
I just want to point out that life on the other side of things (i.e. "Good") can feel just as draining, manipulative and bitched about. Good never suffers as much as Evil, but I don't want anyone thinking that the opposite side of things escapes the scathing criticisms.
I think evil needs a "CITY" (or even CASTLE) that is NOT created by a faction.
Mmyeah, this has been the mentality of many "evil" players since the beginning, especially when the Banites lost their castle. There's no hub for roleplay if you've been banned from all the good/neutral settlements, so you eventually get bored/frusterated and leave.
This very same topic has been extensively discussed over the last 5-10 years, and none of it has changed. Little late for it now.
Not going to read 4 pages of all that text but a big reason why I don't feel like playing is great success of good. DM events of all sizes got way too predictable- all good guys win, no losses except random populous, fuzzy feelings.
If any of you baddies feel like permakilling a satyr just for a win, PM me.
I think evil needs a "CITY" (or even CASTLE) that is NOT created by a faction.
Mmyeah, this has been the mentality of many "evil" players since the beginning, especially when the Banites lost their castle. There's no hub for roleplay if you've been banned from all the good/neutral settlements, so you eventually get bored/frusterated and leave.
This very same topic has been extensively discussed over the last 5-10 years, and none of it has changed. Little late for it now.
It's also really frustrating for a new player to the server. I didn't know a lot of stuff ic and definitely didn't know stuff ooc. Now I do, but the fact I did some boss-runs with a dude is now preventing me from doing shit on-server. Aside from several ooc messages from people that were just "Welcome to Amia" when I've discussed it, it goes like this, "I was new, how was I supposed to know this one specific kind of evil character is ultra kill-on-sight everywhere but all the other evil character types that stroll through the cities and like to boss-run weren't?" "Welcome to Amia."
I actually had an individual recommend I just make a new character, because nobody would ever forget the fact that my dude 'associated' with evil the first week he was here despite no way of knowing. It's so bad here the evil player in question actually warned me about doing boss runs with them in-character, because if I kept doing it I'd just end up blacklisted from everywhere. Even though we never did anything remotely evil when we were together (just did abyss/max/gauntlet runs) there was really no way of me knowing ic or ooc that this sort of black-balling thing could happen as a result of a few undead killing boss runs because of some 10 year server history I was never made aware of ic (or ooc). But it would have been ok for a character to pal around with the palemasters and their undead buddies. Or the demon summoners. Just not 'that guy.'
It's very frustrating. Now my character is just 'tainted.' I really feel like I can't participate in things because of my initial ignorance, and it would be substantially easier to just make a new identical-build character and just ooc know who never to talk to so I don't have to worry.
Sadly a lot of the server's population believes in "new accounts, old players" due to how old NWN is as a game and with how few new people are actually picking up this ancient game. Half of the time someone is new, six people are going to immediately try to figure out "who they are" even if they are new to the server. If they have any remote thought of it might be so-and-so they'll begin to treat the new player like so-and-so. This happened to my sister-in-law, because her and her brother are a lot a like - and why wouldn't they be? They're two years apart, grew up together, moved from one country to another together, went to the same school that had a graduating class of 19 to 20, had the same friends thanks to the small town, and a lot of the same experiences that they shared together as if they were twins (hell, they even look like they could be twins too) until they hit 19 and 21 and now they're together again in the same town in another new country.
The bad thing is, by the time people actually figure out the new player isn't an old player making a new account, the damage is already done.
To go back on topic the same can be said for evil PCs. Anyone who gets close to them, or travels with them, gets the same treatment as the evil PC, even if that PC running with them isn't evil themselves and is clueless like you were, AirPhforce, until it was too late and the damage is done. The players of evil PCs are sometimes treated as they too are evil themselves, or lack a decent set of moral values because they like playing the bad guy. That shouldn't happen but sadly, it does. I don't think there's anything the DM team can do about that because it's up to the players themselves to change their behavior and become more open minded OOC.
You don't need to give up your character. No one can force you to do that except for special circumstances revolving around specific DM plots where you character may become perma-killed (but there's ways out of that, as a lot of us have seen). I know it will be hard, but try not to let your character be ruined by the bad events that have happened so far. Use it as a way for them to grow - after all, some of the best bad guys are the ones who have been screwed over by the good guys.
It's also really frustrating for a new player to the server. I didn't know a lot of stuff ic and definitely didn't know stuff ooc. Now I do, but the fact I did some boss-runs with a dude is now preventing me from doing shit on-server. Aside from several ooc messages from people that were just "Welcome to Amia" when I've discussed it, it goes like this, "I was new, how was I supposed to know this one specific kind of evil character is ultra kill-on-sight everywhere but all the other evil character types that stroll through the cities and like to boss-run weren't?" "Welcome to Amia."
Your character didn't just do that, he also defended the character in question publicly. And the church of bane is not exactly known for helping kittens across the road and helping old women down from trees. He decided to stand up for him(I think the words were something along the lines "someone who slays so many demons can't be all bad") despite that, without actually bothering to ask why that raised so many eyebrows. And if he did do that and still decided to defend him, then well, I'm not sure what you were expecting. It may sound stupid, but that's generally how it works. You associate with a crowd the others don't like, then you'll be counted to that crowd. In varying degrees, that is something that will happen with every faction (and likely not only on this server). Your character just managed to run into a currently notable case and didn't handle the aftermath well. I'm willing to bet that if he went: "Wait, he did x? Woah, that's screwed up, would I've known that" he would've gotten a fairly different reaction. (Maybe he did do that some time afterwards, but it's a lot easier to ruin a rep then repair one, didn't hear of that anyway). And if your character wouldn't think that way, then that is a natural consequence.
AirPhforce wrote:
It's so bad here the evil player in question actually warned me about doing boss runs with them in-character, because if I kept doing it I'd just end up blacklisted from everywhere.
AirPhforce wrote:
there was really no way of me knowing ic or ooc that this sort of black-balling thing could happen as a result of a few undead killing boss runs because of some 10 year server history I was never made aware of ic (or ooc).
I'm not quite sure if the order of events is just off or if you are actually contradict yourself here.
I also know there are other reasons why your character has some trouble getting "shit done on the server". These have nothing to do with your character hanging around with the banite. (I won't go into that topic in any detail cause IC-Stuff should stay IC).
AirPhforce wrote:
Because I actually want to play this game.
So do we all. What happened to your character may have been a bit unfair. Personally (and I'd still say I'm somewhat new to this server) I would have expected consequences, but maybe that's just my natural pessimism. But there were also mistakes on his part. As written above, that could've gone differently imho. The best I can offer is to let him learn from that. Maybe he's going to be a bit more careful with how he acts. Maybe he decides screw it all and becomes a bandit. This is by no means the end of your character in my opinion. It's a new challenge. Half the time the characters and players moan about not knowing what to do. If your character wants to be a part of things, he now has the challenge to figure out how to repair his rep. It won't be fast, it won't be easy, but I believe it can be done. If that is not the kind of roleplay you enjoy, there's not much else I can say. What's done is done, and everyone won't just magically forget what happened. In general, despite whatever else may have been said, I've only ever encountered a single person who was oocly ill-willed.
_________________ Playing as: Aleana Xiloscient: Wherever the winds take her. Jealesyl Truesong: A voice in the dark DM Prometheus: Bringing you fire
We'll have to see. I mean, I've been told flat out in character the reason I can't go do 'thing' with everyone else was because I was seen doing boss runs with a character.
It's no surprise to me why evil can never get anything accomplished. If being seen with one makes participating with the server this hard, I literally cannot imagine how boring it must be to actually play one, banned from everything forever, away from all activities, kill on sight for a huge percentage of the population, unable to do anything. So have fun trying to have 'fun' unless your idea of fun is sitting on your ass in kampos or tarkul talking about how much it sucks to be banned from everywhere but unable to do anything because you're outnumbered 30-1.
And given everyone's attitudes tword the whole thing I don't really ever see it changing. I don't want to be a bad guy who "has been screwed over by the good guys." Because even if that made sense in-character, there's literally nothing to do, and anyone caught rolling with you essentially gets a big ol scarlet letter and everyone already knows before you even get back to town, and/or you get accused ooc of being in a clique. As I've been told, "Welcome to Amia."
I mean, say we get another one of those spooky DM shadowscape portal events going on. You really think any good characters are going to let a blacklisted player anywhere near that 'fun?' Fuck no.
But that's what I really don't get, this whole idea that evil has to always bring conflict. The past week or so I've noticed it's really more "good" bringing the conflict to evil, perhaps in an effort to just wear them down. There's also no hope of reform or change because a large portion of the people I meet IC don't need any reason other then "I'm good" so they can justify any action.
>_> Banites are evil (unless they are Neutral, but Bane is LE himself, so yeah). It was actually really nice of the PC to let you know IC that it was a bad idea to associate with him; of course that Banite is the sort of guy you love to hate, very cordial and such. But yeah, everything I have witnessed has been entirely IC, due to RP. It sucks, for sure, but Bane being evil is part of the setting so that's just how it goes.
_________________ 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
Your character didn't just do that, he also defended the character in question publicly. And the church of bane is not exactly known for helping kittens across the road and helping old women down from trees. He decided to stand up for him(I think the words were something along the lines "someone who slays so many demons can't be all bad") despite that, without actually bothering to ask why that raised so many eyebrows. And if he did do that and still decided to defend him, then well, I'm not sure what you were expecting. It may sound stupid, but that's generally how it works. You associate with a crowd the others don't like, then you'll be counted to that crowd. In varying degrees, that is something that will happen with every faction (and likely not only on this server). Your character just managed to run into a currently notable case and didn't handle the aftermath well. I'm willing to bet that if he went: "Wait, he did x? Woah, that's screwed up, would I've known that" he would've gotten a fairly different reaction. (Maybe he did do that some time afterwards, but it's a lot easier to ruin a rep then repair one, didn't hear of that anyway). And if your character wouldn't think that way, then that is a natural consequence.
Yeah that's literally what I said in my post. You would think a comment like "someone who slays so many demons can't be all bad" would bring on stories about a bane castle and siege and hunting in amia forest but no it just got grunts groans eyebrows and backs turned.
Tarnus wrote:
I'm not quite sure if the order of events is just off or if you are actually contradict yourself here.
I got warned by the evil man after a few runs and after being seen and having someone raise a stink. Not initially. Either way, nobody told me this shit until after it all happened. I think it's sort of telling when it's the evil character warning you about repercussions for hanging out with that specific kind of evil character. I had to find out all this lore later.
Tarnus wrote:
I also know there are other reasons why your character has some trouble getting "shit done on the server". These have nothing to do with your character hanging around with the banite. (I won't go into that topic in any detail cause IC-Stuff should stay IC).
ok. thanks for that.
Tarnus wrote:
So do we all. What happened to your character may have been a bit unfair.
Thanks.
Tarnus wrote:
Personally (and I'd still say I'm somewhat new to this server) I would have expected consequences, but maybe that's just my natural pessimism.
Consequences for what? I had no idea. There are necromancers, undead, and demons that I've just seen waltzing around Cordor. How the hell was I supposed to know ic or ooc that this one specific banner was part of a multi-faction blacklist?
Tarnus wrote:
But there were also mistakes on his part. As written above, that could've gone differently imho. The best I can offer is to let him learn from that. Maybe he's going to be a bit more careful with how he acts. Maybe he decides screw it all and becomes a bandit. This is by no means the end of your character in my opinion. It's a new challenge. Half the time the characters and players moan about not knowing what to do. If your character wants to be a part of things, he now has the challenge to figure out how to repair his rep. It won't be fast, it won't be easy, but I believe it can be done. If that is not the kind of roleplay you enjoy, there's not much else I can say. What's done is done, and everyone won't just magically forget what happened. In general, despite whatever else may have been said, I've only ever encountered a single person who was oocly ill-willed.
I am learning from mistakes. I'm not ever going to make a new character that doesn't already know about the factions and faction histories of Amia. Or that doesn't already know about all the FR gods and their alignment. I thought I could learn organically. I guess in a way I did.
I also am actually a new nwn player, new to amia, and not part of a clique. I realize that's almost impossible to believe.
This conversation is out of scope for this topic anyway, so I won't be replying to this kind of thing anymore. I wanted to voice my opinion as a new player walking into this server and share my experiences about "evil, and Amia." I don't need an individual character drill-down or an explanation of why I'm being singled out. I'm still trying to adjust to evil being measurable and quantifiable and being expected to role-play based on that instead of how I see a character acting. Sorry, I'm new.
Also, nobody does that with the other side- it's always evil, but the same should also be said for a player from the other side. I think we need to start thinking this way as players.
I'm new (not quite as green as Airphorce, but I'd hardly consider myself an established person in the community). One of my characters frequently associates and dungeon-crawls with evil folks. I've yet to be banned from anywhere or shunned by anyone. I figure it's because my character is subtle, and takes measures to maintain their reputation? Maybe I'm just failing to correctly see things from someone else's point of view, but I think that this (even if it sucks, OOC!) is a case of IC actions attracting IC consequences.
To apply this to the main topic: I think that right now simply isn't the time to blatantly get anywhere near evil ('evil' can usually be considered something that the general populace clearly has hostility towards!). Be subtle about it, restrain your urge to argue "Cyrists are people too!", or find people willing to RP at the fringes of civilization. There's the RP advertiser now available in the Player Tools, and the forums; anyone can totally shoot me a PM if they want to chill in the woods or a cave or w/e sometime. (I mean this to, like, anybody that feels that this' affecting them. Not just Airphorce.)
EDIT:
Quote:
I'm still trying to adjust to evil being measurable and quantifiable and being expected to role-play based on that instead of how I see a character acting. Sorry, I'm new.
Actually, I do want to note that, from what I can gather (I didn't witness this first-hand!), your character wasn't "punished" because you didn't immediately lynch the Banite when you learned that he or she is evil; just as your character judged the Banite by their actions, they could've deemed it dangerous to side with the Banite based on the good-folks' reactions. By my thinking, this' a purely IC issue. I know that you said that you weren't going to continue this discussion, I just wanted to try my best to explain my perspective, considering the passive-aggressiveness. Like I said above, I can try and get banished folks involved in stuff, if you haven't abandoned your character.
_________________ FaithDias SigrinSapple
Last edited by Faith on Sat, Dec 26 2015, 7:00 AM, edited 1 time in total.
Yeah that's literally what I said in my post. You would think a comment like "someone who slays so many demons can't be all bad" would bring on stories about a bane castle and siege and hunting in amia forest but no it just got grunts groans eyebrows and backs turned.
<_< I distinctly recall my PC telling your character (and other PCs saying the same thing) that Banites are evil and not to be messed with, other players even mentioned the evil things they have done (that Banite character, even), and your character continued to associate with him. He was warned numerous times about messing with Banites. You cannot blame that on anything but your character not listening.
AirPhforce wrote:
I got warned by the evil man after a few runs and after being seen and having someone raise a stink. Not initially. Either way, nobody told me this shit until after it all happened. I think it's sort of telling when it's the evil character warning you about repercussions for hanging out with that specific kind of evil character. I had to find out all this lore later.
So... the evil guy says 'hey I'm evil you should be careful with hanging out with me' and you proceed to do so anyways... and do not see the issue? It's entirely logical that the people that said 'hey don't mess with this guy' will follow the RP of 'well we told you so'.
AirPhforce wrote:
Consequences for what? I had no idea. There are necromancers, undead, and demons that I've just seen waltzing around Cordor. How the hell was I supposed to know ic or ooc that this one specific banner was part of a multi-faction blacklist?
I think Tarnus is referring to after he was told Banites are bad news.
Murex wrote:
Also, nobody does that with the other side- it's always evil, but the same should also be said for a player from the other side. I think we need to start thinking this way as players.
What do you mean, exactly?
_________________ 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
We'll have to see. I mean, I've been told flat out in character the reason I can't go do 'thing' with everyone else was because I was seen doing boss runs with a character.
Depends on your character's angle. I play characters who hang around neutral characters and get called 'evil'.
I play characters who hang around evil characters all the time and are considered 'good'.
There are also characters on this server who are evil that are considered 'good'.
My advice is if characters don't want to play because xyz. Don't play with them. Don't seek them out. Don't look for their approval.
Consequences are a thing that should happen ic. Refusing rp or ignoring rp in any manner is just poor sportsmanship. There are players who will ask not to play with you if you do something they don't approve of. My best advice is to avoid these sorts and create your own rp. They aren't worth the effort or time. Seek out players who will continue rp. Consequences should be a thing. Action and reaction. Roleplay should be comprised of a series of reactions and actions. If you can't get any actions or reactions then make your own actions count. Work with those who come here to role play. Work with dm's if you have a plot submit it and become the next potential Guest Story Teller if it's good enough.
And if any one get's ya down just... ya know... Shake em off and keep doing your thing.
This should be a place of fun... if you aren't having fun with some one or some one's character move on to the next one till you find some you can have fun with. Here's a little flow chart I like to reference when Amia gets...meh
Are you roleplaying? No? Find some one to rp with. Yes? ---->Are you having fun? No? Find some one else to rp with. Yes? ----> You're golden baby.
Alternatively...
Are you roleplaying? No? Find some one to rp with. Yes? You're good then.
_________________
❤ Amia is Fun Again! ❤ #GreenisNotACreativeColour "It's easy to feel like a hero. It's a little harder to be one."
This is not really a solution for IC reactions. I do not know what happened ICly between you and the other people but considering our interactions, I doubt that everyone treated your character that way.
As for associating with banites and the reactions in general to that. It is not about "blacklisting a banner". If you are playing on a Forgotten Realms based RP server you are expected to know some basic lore (you already know some, from what I've noticed) about FR lore. IC reactions based on IC attitude is not something that should be brought up here. If your character didn't know that ICly, then he didn't...so what? React accordingly In Character. Your character is a kobold with red scales, and judging by our IC conversations, he already knows that people might judge him because of that thus he has to be careful.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 70 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
