AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Heh, why stop there?

Raise dead scrolls are a plot breaker.

That's a whole different discussion, Mimiron.

Alo, meaningful isn't another word for hindrance, which is what mechanical consequences for PvP would be.

@ Mimiron:
Because there is a smoothly working balance you want to reach, that takes into an account a number of considerations and factors.

@666WaysToHell:
And actually yes, as soon as there are consequences, many of the the outcomes of pvp situations would have a greater impact the storyline of the conflict rp. That gives them greater meaning. That it also serves as a hinderance and deterrent on repetitive pvp conflicts reduces the amount of encounters, which in turn makes them more relevant when they do occur. is intended. Just as how our pvp rules are like a mechanic serving as a detterent to griefing. Or how our raise cooldown helped cut down on incredibly silly pvp encounters.

These mechanics have an impact on the atmosphere and storylines. In many survival games, there is a permanent death when your character dies to help create a feeling of fear and danger. Now, Amia is not a survival game, and I am not suggesting perma death, but our mechanics influence the stories and atmosphere. Having a world with easily accessable cure it alls for wounds and death, no consequences to pvp encounters and 24hour breaks for losses is one of the biggest contributors to our current situation.

If you want to change that, you need to address those mechanics.

Gentlemen's agreements to create a better conflict work only between small groups of players. Like it once did on Caraigh for a while. But as soon as more DMs and players begin to get involved, those no longer work. Hence it comes down to mechanics.

@666WaysToHell: Some people might have considered adding a death-timmer for raises a 'hindrance' but it stopped the ridiculous immediate-raise-trains that used to be the pvp norm. I'd say that was a step in the right direction. -and it was a mechanical one.

I don't think the potential of grieving should be used as an excuse to stop consequences of PvP being a thing. Make the consequences revertible so that if they are abused, it can easily be resolved with DM intervention, which is what grieving would probably need to stop it anyway.

People breaking rules should not hinder our ability to create consequential feelings for your actions on the server.

Also, Death is supposed to be a hindrance. That is why it is death. I don't remember ever trying to die to get better things in life.

The biggest problem I have with Amian conflict and why I avoid it is always the same. If I win, killing the other guy, 5 minutes later they're in my face again. Rinse, wash, repeat. It's the biggest flaw in Amian PvP policy and the silliest nuisance I've run into ingame.

PvP should never have serious permanent consequence unless it's voluntary simply because even with Amia's alterations, NWN is unbalanced as hell, but something as simple as "if you lose PvP, you must avoid interaction with the victor for 24 RL hours" would go a long way.

Pony wrote:

Or how our raise cooldown helped cut down on incredibly silly pvp encounters.

It was a step in the right direction PvP wise. PvM wise it's just annoying.
Also heal potions. The topic was locked with "I am going to look into this". Never happened.

I think it's straw-man to use "because griefing" for an excuse to maintain status quo.

No matter what happens, if you randomly get killed/griefed/illegally pvp'd, that event usually doesn't get played out, or stick. In my opinion, this might even motivate more player reports, and more enforcement of the rules for said violators, causing an overall improvement of the server.

@Mimiron I think I'm to late. Someone may have said it. But raise dead scrolls don't always break plots. Characters ICly can refuse to be raised for as long as they want. A raise dead scroll does not always raise you.

Last edited by RaveN on Mon, Jul 14 2014, 16:37 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Err.. that's not really what I meant. I meant raise dead scrolls working on other players as well as myself.

Often times, I found myself questioning just how much consequences to give my character, whenever they were injured, or hurt, or died. ICly, almost consistently, we all get the overbearing PC's who go "Why not just drink a heal potion" or "Just use a raise dead scroll."

To me, that's basically short circuiting whatever adventure not having done that would've provided you and the others. That's the price for being high-magic though.

To me, and maybe just me, it's as cheap a story as "lets just forget what happened and move on."

@Mimiron Okay! Sorry for the comment then.

Mimiron wrote:

Err.. that's not really what I meant. I meant raise dead scrolls working on other players as well as myself.

Often times, I found myself questioning just how much consequences to give my character, whenever they were injured, or hurt, or died. ICly, almost consistently, we all get the overbearing PC's who go "Why not just drink a heal potion" or "Just use a raise dead scroll."

To me, that's basically short circuiting whatever adventure not having done that would've provided you and the others. That's the price for being high-magic though.

To me, and maybe just me, it's as cheap a story as "lets just forget what happened and move on."

Pet peeve of mine. I smile IG, but behind my computer my jaw is square, teeth grinding and eyes narrowed. :wink:

MightNMagic wrote:

The biggest problem I have with Amian conflict and why I avoid it is always the same. If I win, killing the other guy, 5 minutes later they're in my face again. Rinse, wash, repeat. It's the biggest flaw in Amian PvP policy and the silliest nuisance I've run into ingame.

I agree with this. In order for RP to be enjoyable, I think that it has to be meaningful. What baffles me today is that I continiously see people taking extreme IC efforts in spoiling a body after PvP while knowing full well that the PC is just going to resurrect anyway. It makes things even worse in my opinion. None of that RP is meaningful in my opinion unless the PC has agreed to permanent effects from the RP.

Also, Mimiron have had some very good posts surrounding death and consequence in the past. I can't for the life of me remember the thread name, though.

Death is something that is rather cheap at the moment. I think the Thayan group has done really well in using the "Defeat does not necessarily mean death" mindset.

Dead and Pony hit it on the head. I would LOVE a system that make you suffer a bit after losing. No regenerate or heal potions should fix deaths penalties unless it takes a week or two.

I can see the value in that, but I have always applied my own damages to myself. Over the years playing my main, he has been "out of commission" for stretches of time due to a broken leg, a bad head cold, two broken noses, malnourishment from extended slavery, frostbite, a brief overpreoccupation with death after an ill run-in with a banshee, and most recently a slipped disc. These are just the ones I can remember. A system that generalizes my wounds rather than giving me a certain creative freedom to determine them (or allows others to determine them, as the case may be) and roleplay them in a way that makes sense to me seems limiting. But I suppose it is worth the sacrifice.

We could add the wound effects (in addition to the system) to the rest menu hurt options. That way in case you get a concussion on your character, but also want to have a broken leg, you can use it to satisfy your creativity. :wink:

All interesting points.

You might be surprised to know that in most cases, we've attempted (With varying degrees of success), diplomatic conflict first. It boils down to intimidation and threats, but it's worked with a handful (And it reallllly didn't work with some

). I fondly remember surrounding and being surrounded for tense 'peace' talks. Some of which have remained in place!

We're currently brainstorming ways in which our faction and those opposed to it can be in the same area, be terse, and not be killing each other. We've got a few plans. But non-PvP conflict for an Openly conflict-based group is tough, but definitely the goal we should all be seeking.

Quote:

Team Neutral = Team Good.

I feel this is dead wrong and one of the biggest misconceptions on the server. Team neutral are those that won't ride out to assist others easily but that will defend their own assets, town and friends with a vengeance.

I think many on 'team evil' confuse those who will only defend their own with those that'd fight to protect others then their own and their own interest. It's quite not the same thing or the same team though.

If Cyricists attack and burn a small village in Comyr there would be a response.
If Cyricists attack and burn a small village near Zhentill keep there would be a response just as well as the black network wouldn't suffer the damage to their trading assets and revenues close to home.

Does that put the Zhents on team good because they'd try to wipe out 'team evil'?

Pony wrote:

We could add the wound effects (in addition to the system) to the rest menu hurt options. That way in case you get a concussion on your character, but also want to have a broken leg, you can use it to satisfy your creativity. :wink:

Ok!

Pony wrote:

The first is to make pvp conflict carry with it consequences, that discourage repetitive pvp encounters and make those that occur more meaningful.

This, this and again this. You've just discovered the nature of the beast, sir Pony.

Pvp without consequences is what makes this game, this gaming world going down the gutter. There is nothing more annoying than *body crumbles to dust* or *body vanish in a flash of light*.

And from the personal exprience, multiple personal experience, I have to say that people with the biggest macho badass talk and behavior are the first who flee the scene (using the mentioned method of self-dissapearing when dead) when shit hits the fan. So some backbone would be a nice improvement as well - but here scepticism beats any odds, I'm afraid.

Pfft, Helmite, this is the same rant I have posted each time this topic came up for the last three years. I think the nature of the beast as well known, but we just have enough who block it because the thought of any consequences removes the control they need to feel comfortable. :wink:

I try my best to avoid direct conflict rp between player factions, especially pvp roleplay. The mechanics dominate the way conflict encounters will be handled. Without us adjusting them to create the type of conflict roleplay we want to see, the rest does not factor in any meaningful manner. While for a while it can be influenced with groups or individuals setting trends of style, these do not last without mechanics backing them.

I have tried it for some time, others have tried it for some time, and people will continue to try it. It stops because the majority will not play the same way, and you will get immensely frustrated over time that you give and give, but do not get anything in return. Or that you give, and it just makes no sense for your character to behave that way. So you simply turn to what makes sense ic and is most effective. Without mechanical changes, we always end up back here. As these topics have shown for years. It is as simple as that, in my opinion.

Currently player-faction conflict rp of this nature (unless between a very small group of likeminded players) simply never stays enjoyable for both sides. I stay away from it as best I can, because I do not want to contribute to someone feeling like their roleplay was ruined. The same way I feel about the kohl-thay encounter that I sleep walked into a few days ago. I do not feel I helped give those players very interresting and enjoyable roleplay. Partly because I was too slow to see someone was beheading them all. The point being, I rather let them do their thing as best I can, because I do not feel like those type of encounters do much for the story if they happen regularly.

It is a pity, as it really seems like they are great players.

Pony wrote:

We could add the wound effects (in addition to the system) to the rest menu hurt options. That way in case you get a concussion on your character, but also want to have a broken leg, you can use it to satisfy your creativity. :wink:

There is nothing stopping you from doing so or sitting down with the other side and hashing out consequences before or after battle. I'd much rather see players doing so by themselves then we having to enforce it.

There is a big differance between two sides gearing up for conflict and then having at it merrily (consequences would be great then)
and a poor sod getting caught in the middle/ slain because someone with a better build/ bigger group felt like it for whatever reason (doesn't need consequences imho.)

It'd also go a great ways towards Hackums golden rule nr. 2 -> Always be polite ooc'ly.

While a lot have been said on conflict between "Good" and "Evil", and valid points were raised, "Team Neutral" was identified with "Team Good". As player on this team, I can attest that equalization is not true at it's core. Certainly, during typical conflicts many Neutral elements side with "Team Good". Why?
To my understanding - due to a simple fact that such behavior benefits them most, in long term. Bribes, threats and other stimulants may be able shift odds, but these have to be balanced against lasting backlash in area of public relationships, which character in question will encounter if action (or a crime) on behalf of "Team Evil" is performed in less than perfect way, and his/her involvement is never discovered. Public opinion is ever important for a would-be villain or unscrupulous neutral for well-known reason - Amian region, and indeed Amian community is politically dominated by "Team Good" (in no small extent due to greater percent of server population having "Good" alignment). That being said, this does not mean that there is no place for "Team Evil" and "Team Neutral" out there, with latter being a bit of misnomer - "Neutral" characters and factions vary greatly in their approach and agenda.
To illustrate last point, I can offer admittedly anecdotal situation - my very first PvP interaction on this server occurred not between conflicting representatives of "Good vs Evil" axis, and not even "Law vs Chaos" - both characters had exact same alignment, and fought for their (conflicting) beliefs, which leads to a next point - positive conflict must be believable.
By being "believable", I mean to a certain extent sympathizeable, with borders between extremes hazy, both sides need plausible argumentation behind their position and reasons to engage into a conflict, and suggest here taking inspiration from real life political engagements and famous short story "Rashomon" - without any side having clear, if any, moral advantage, as well as mitigating necessity of clashes on vertical alignment axis.

This discussion about consequences feels like déjà vu.

On the forefront you have people advocating real mechanical change, to bypass the ability to simply ignore RP, not only for your own consequences, but for the benefit of the other party, having the comfort that having killed someone won't just get you a new nemesis five minutes later.

Then you have people who will always come in, who will drum the status quo drums, saying "You can't add mechanical penalties, because griefers." I've been griefed, so I know how it is. I still would rather have mechanical penalties, so that's (as I explained earlier) why I think this point of view is straw-man.

Previously, and currently, it always ends with some people taking the higher ground essentially saying - "If you want death consequences, you need to be the example of change, and only the playerbase can accurately fulfill this void."

That's probably how this will conclude as well. For what it's worth, I can assume that these people are content with how it is. The playerbase doesn't seem to acknowledge or feel that the system is flawed; but rather they blame the weakness of the death system on the playerbase.

In my opinion, the playerbase is not the answer or the solution to this problem, I feel. How can it be? Currently, there is no reason for someone to actually roleplay consequences other than to take the time to enhance or turn the page of a new chapter of their story.

WYSIWYG? What you see? Raise Dead Scroll. What you get? No RP.

Now and then, everyone; whether it's their own PC, or just witnessing another player's actions will be exposed to death and be reminded that everyone takes a serious issue that should be an absolutely critical character development point with varying degrees of severity. Some are inspirational, and can tell a sad tale and complete an epic story, or provide a vehicle to RP'ing a recovery. Others can talk about how death is pointless and how the gods just raise everyone for fun and the lolz.

I ignored the problem while I played, it was the only way I could deal with it. It was effective enough. However, everyone seems to be complaining about the lack of conflict now. This, I feel, is not so unrelated.

I agree completly.

If you are advocating for anything but mechanical changes, the two dozen topics in the past clearly illustrate you are essentially saying "keep the status quo".

Eh, the griefing argument is a strawman. If I want to troll or grief someone, I will find a way, regardless of how the server is built or the mechanics surrounding death. There are few forces on the interwebz more creative than the troll. In fact, time-based wound penalties let you check clientside, then and there, IG, if someone's on a bit of a spree, because you should be able to see them on the sheet. Yes, it will make no RP ganks more "severe", but it will also get anyone actually griefing (and not just winning

) caught and dealt with fairly easily.

Are people complaining about the lack of conflict? o_O

If anything, this thread was more for a "How can we make our conflict better?" There are things within our power as players, and that's what this thread should be focusing on. How can we as players help?

I don't see a lack of conflict. Not at all like I used to. If I had any complaint, it would be that I don't see enough conflict that is interesting or relevant that doesn't involve DM intervention. It isn't a huge deal for me, though. I am content.

I did not by any means want to say that Neutral = Good. My goal was to emphasize that Neutral is most often RPed as Good on Amia. I see neutral characters starting a crusade against evil, shunning evil characters and so on. It is a thing. Some of you will say "I'm not like that!" but the fact is that most of the N team are exactly like that. They actively engage themselves in combating evil. There are honorable exceptions, and I know them. And I do get where you are coming from Dunecat, but it is just all too convenient for team Neutral to RP team Good to make it believable.

That being said I'd absolutely love to see rest menu options for wounds. That way not only PvP is affected by the consequences but RP as well.

MadrikVale wrote:

-True RP is fun. I haven't been captured (unintentionally) for a long while but when I am, then that's it. I'm your prisoner, do what you will (but no soap-dropping). Don't release me if you wouldn't IC. I might be busy with stuff and capture interrupts other RP but that's just how it is. Be realistic. The only down side is when you want to RP when your captor is offline. Poor Krin and his gate-staring.

I dream about that gate now...

But yeah, basically everything Madrik said. We're all here to have fun and develop the story that is Amia. I got over 'losing' in PvP a long time ago. Sometimes I lose on purpose just to make things more interesting. I've had a lot of fun interacting with the Thayvians..or is it Thayans?

I think anyone that decides to play an evil character on the server(or even a good character that goes against the grain) is in for an uphill battle. The good guys will always out number the bad guys and, most of the time, the good guys are going to win.

I don't think the server needs a new system of consequences for losing in PvP. I think it would benefit much more from just giving the player factions something to argue, plot, and fight over. Maybe a stretch of land? A goddamn castle? I don't know.

The major cities on the island, with their massive NPC armies, guards that have true sight, omnipotent voices, etc. etc. are pretty far out of reach for normal player run groups. Sure, you can get involved in the city RP, but taking full control of a city is typically going to be a no-go unless you get access to a horde of NPCs.

Why not put something smaller in that player factions can have a real visible impact on and fight for control of?

It's refreshing to see that people are content, as that's the overall goal.

The cost vs. reward for getting involved in player conflicts is rather lopsided in the "do not do" column. For me, the #1 reason was: The people on the other end of this will not appreciate it or take it seriously (i.e. they'll just raise scroll and remember exactly what happened and hate you IC.)

That's why I stopped doing it. But I can't speak for anyone else.

Mr. Hackums wrote:

Are people complaining about the lack of conflict? o_O

If anything, this thread was more for a "How can we make our conflict better?" There are things within our power as players, and that's what this thread should be focusing on. How can we as players help?

No. People seem to complain about no real input and output of the existing conflicts.

How can we make our conflict better? Take it seriously. Forget Raise dead scrolls and Respawn button, which is the biggest IC ruiner ever. If you play rough, expect someone to cut your balls eventually. And if you do not like it, don't play rough - it takes a backbone to go into conflict - you'll not always gain, you sometimes loose.

The game doesn't need to change. We need to change. That is all I have to say to threads like this.

Admittedly, I see where Sphinx is coming from and I have to in part agree (and I'm a vet of this game and the things which have happened therin). *And, seeing as most times him and I end up at opposite ends of the Firing line in game... *

We can only change the server so much without knocking something well off kilter to the point it might cause things to tumble apart. We CAN change ourselves however and our outlook. It's not liable to happen overnight but.. if we take slow steps, it can happen.

I, personally, like the idea that death is death--sickness is sickness--injury is injury. It makes for great roleplay, and conflict, when done correctly. I don't like people hounding down potions after potions, or healing everyone around them. If you were to think about it, would a priest really be able to fully heal, resurrect, and fully cure multiple people over-and-over again without suffering in some way for it? Would heal potions not start to make a person feel woozy, or sick, from having been injured and cured so quickly? A true resurrection is supposed to take a level, or more, away from a cleric--would just ANY priest sacrifice so much of their power for an ally they barely know--hell, would the NPC's do it for someone they don't know? All of these things should have repercussions (at least in my eyes).

In regards to factions, I think you can garnish positive conflict, by keeping it true-to-form. Have meetings IG, go through the process of setting up ties somewhere, a faction house, plotting against who you want to plot against, and then utilizing a plan and formulating a response that would either be productive to the server, or demolish something! Realize, though, that there is going to be death, injury, and struggle. You're not always going to win, and if you can't handle that as a player, you shouldn't join a faction. For those of you who say good always wins, that is not true. Evil HAS the ability to win, and even neutral factions have the ability to overthrow both good and evil, if the time and effort is put into it. Time is the key ingredient here. I agree with what Madrik said about keeping it realistic, too. Wars aren't won in a day, so let's not try to "Let's just get this out of the way" every faction or PC group that pops up. It's sad how many have disappeared since I've been playing here, all that had the potential--that just got stubbed out so soon. Play it out, let it go, and conflict will just keep growing and growing.

That being said, while my own PC hates all political things and wars, and all that good stuff--I love it. There /should/ be times of ambushing, political wars, and assassinations. All of these things include death--but what is the point, if the death was meaningless, because 5 minutes later, the person is back up and walking...acting like it never happened? I understand we've gods, and some people will come back--but I truly think it'd be nice if more people didn't. Hell, coming back with an injury or mental sickness would even work (after being raised so many times, maybe?) would even impress me. I think it'd leave a better statement...

Well, that was why I was urging people to brainstorm small, but effective strategies. The Thayan's not killing people is a great way to avoid that kind of circular "Raise dead, return" thing.

There are likely players who are thinking I'm being hugely hypocritical, given the recent return of a certain few corpses that were in captivity. But I was trying very hard to be fair to both sides, and accommodating to player effort. Eventually, I had to understand that being fair to both sides involved being fair to my own!

To give perspective, the Thayan group has had to perform 10 True Raises in the past 10 days. It's not RP that's taken lightly, and thankfully, those have been 10 different characters, rather than anyone repeating. That's.. a really high number! And I myself prefer not to wield such high and powerful magic lightly. And I think others will no doubt start to get frustrated in how frequently we use it, too-- But we've had to, or the faction (And its conflict) would be extinct! Granted, we've died because we fought. It's not as if we can just blame others for our problems, as our actions have most certainly been the cause of our own IC consequences, to an extent.

But the easiest solution I have found to avoid the "Raise dead, insta-heal, return" mentality is to avoid killing people. Nivo's arguments were sound why the good guys would want to kill people, mind. But there are definitely strategies and alternatives-- we just need to find them, and adapt them to the mentalities of our varied situations.

My good-aligned rationale was always "because killing is bad" and "the most celebrated are the rehabilitated". The question is easy for my main, who would be unlikely to be able to kill anyone even if he wanted to.

In hindsight, it might be better to not approve some of these True Raises. To force us to go and make a clandestine effort at retrieving bodies. The problem is that it's likely to fail, and those people are also likely to be put into a perma-situation. And it could and would likely get to a point where we simply can't rescue, and then the faction fades.

Hm. So I understand Nivo's sentiment, but I suppose we can begin to see how it's a vicious cycle.

Consider that good guys Kill and imprison because ICly they want the conflict to cease. By killing and burying, we're then given very few options:

- We can decide to invoke the 24 hour rule (Which then becomes a source of contention. We enter the 'These guys will never die' cycle. When players feel that there is nothing they can do to influence someone else, it becomes really, really bad)

- We can perform a True Raise. But that's potent magic! And shouldn't be used lightly, or frequently.

- We can attempt mundane rescue, but with the possibility (And likelihood) of suffering further casualties. We're a group of players against a -city-.

- Or we can simply lose. We can simply say, "Those people are gone, there is nothing we can do." Which, I will have you know, I was ready and willing to let my character suffer these kinds of consequences. But there's a threshold. An event horizon, so to speak. If we lose 1-2 members of our faction, and they're alive and imprisoned in top-security-- we may still be able to barter, to break them out. But if 10-14 people in our faction are captured and behind bars, the small rest of our people are not likely going to be able to threaten, barter, or rescue their way out of it. The large threat has been culled. The smaller one can be culled just the same. Why exchange the 14 prisoners for hostages, when you can just kill or imprison the remaining 3 agents? Even if they've got hostages, it would be the lesser evil just to defeat them quickly.

What I'm trying to get at here, is that a lot of the frustrations that players feel, the "Raise dead and return" dilemma is totally sour, but also one of the very few viable options that we have as a faction to return and play. To continue fostering conflict. The alternative is to simply lose. And while I think we're ready to do that, it's...heavy.

I'll boil down a post I was going to make to a key problem , which I believe Nivo's touched on:

Those other strategies work when there's a way to ensure that those under your charge aren't in danger of the person you need to punish targeting them for retaliatory strikes, directly or indirectly.

I'm admittedly borrowing from an Anime to provide an example here:

One of the Juppongatana , Fuji the Giant (I think his name is, people who watched the series will know who I'm talking about) , was a very physically powerful person (A literal giant and honest to effing christ the kind of guy you'd want in a Town-wrecking scenario).

He had been manipulated to serve the forces of the antagonists into helping with an assault on a major city, and it was through the understanding of a powerful martial artist who could fully face him head in on spite of the size difference that freed him from the manipulations he had been facing.

In the end , Fuji had been beaten and ultimately, as opposed to facing capital punishment was offered a plea deal where he could work in Northern Hokkaido as part of his punishment as both a first line of defense for Northern Japan, AND additionally he'd be able to help working in farming.

--

Redemption isn't a concept wholly lost on me but Tuomas has had to face the reality that he is serving a City who's innocent people don't have his abilities with magic or his force of will , and that if they're gone or even massively injured have to deal with the effects of that for the rest of their lives COULD potentially be targeted as a way to get to him and those he serves with and under.

And, to be honest Tuomas' magic on it's own CAN'T even kill anyways, ((Adding here after I had posted since Yossi had a good point)) Some of the options which achieve the above notion of keeping people safe in cases dire enough that rehabilitation isn't an option, also either are limiting or require PC consent but aren't wholly permadeath.

I'm definitely understanding why there is a struggle. Why options are limited for the Good guys to perform ICly viable methods of imprisonment, killing, and rehabilitation. It's not as if the Good guys can say, "You'll do this, or we'll kill your sister." It's very hard to find compelling magic, compelling reasons, and OOC consent to do these kinds of things.

And if they can't find these reasons, letting the bad guys go, especially if these are murderers, just isn't viable either.

What we really need is a group of master thieves. Not murderers, but those who are able to steal bodies.

There has to be some way for bad guys to suffer consequences, but not suffer immediate end to Rp. I mean mostly for a faction effort.

I've got an idea, but no time to spell it out. But the jist of it is an Amian Alcatraz. A maximum security penitentiary where bad criminals can be sent and Rp together while captive. Somewhere that rescue attempts can try and fail or succeed without interrupting or inconveniencing the Goodly intended RP. So it's not the Kohlingar's fault for letting the prisoners get away. It's the Alcatraz. But it's also no longer their problem, either. They don't have to manage to police a bunch of captives (For what is admittedly a small jail).

You've got prisoner escorts that can be waylaid, ransoms that can be paid in secret, severe punishment. Hostage exchanges, guard assassinations-- and wonderfully dynamic and available Rp for prisoners to engage in. I think amping up the Prison RP is going to be a way to remove a -huge- part of this cycle.

Having a 3rd party prison could work.

An Amian Alcatraz or an Amian Gitmo?

How would you set that up in a way which'd make any sense in the world? I admit I'm curious, because if it can be done without being utterly contrived , then hey that'd be awesome.

Rogaku's spot on here when he brings up collateral damage. When you kill ten evil guys and lose over a hundred NPCs in the process, you're not taking a win. When you try to arrest a blackguard and he starts taking the sword to nearby civilians, you're not taking a win. When violence, as a good guy, is your first response to something evil, violence is all you're going to get in return and for a lot of truly evil characters, not just shady neutrals, terrorism and genocide is an entirely legit option.

Until you try it on NWN.

There's a problem with terror tactics there. There are no (or few) direct, felt consequences for any faction if they go hardline and the response is their civilian charges being targeted. And that is a massive problem, especially on team "good". NWN lets you do the "shoot first, ask later" thing without suffering any sort of setback. Worse, still, when those NPCs are actually slain and nothing is felt, IG, not even a tiny, little dent in your manpower. NPC guards missing, staffing problems etc. You cannot complain about evils rezzing, when their greatest weapons when pushed with their backs against the wall are rarely catered to by most NWN servers. And the worst bit of it is, if you're callously endangering civilians, you should be shifted from good to neutral at best. But since they aren't usually "there" to be killed in a conflict situation, that doesn't happen. As a good guy, it's never on you in NWN if you were dumb enough to pick a fight with a credible threat near a bunch of soft targets and the first shot goes there. It's always on the "evil guy".

Realistically, people aren't this dumb. If you go in guns blazing and get a bunch of civilians killed, it's on you. Not on the enemy, not on the bad guy. It's on you. The bad guy is expected to be "bad". You though, you fucked up. Case in point is the often alluded to orphanage fire. Attributing this to the Thayans alone? That's implausible. You went in without negotiating and callously let a fuck ton of kids get killed by folks you knew were capable of it. Why is it on the bad guy again? It's your job to save people, it's HIS job to kill people. He did his job. You failed to do yours, Mr "Hero". That's just one example of the ICly sociopathical disregard for collateral team good often shows, without any sort of backlash. It's not their fault either, though, because day in and day out, representing these NPCs isn't their job, making their reactions realistic isn't their job, in a decade of NWN, the behaviour that "good" gets a carte blanche to take bloodbaths in stride to "get the bad guy" has been reinforced countless times over and over again. I dunno about you, but I don't think it's immersive and it takes depth and weight from conflict situations, as well as neuters a very, very powerful weapon in player arsenals on all sides, or worse, sets it firmly on the side of one faction. Public opinion is fickle and dangerous, not constant.

Definitely is a sticky situation, and as far as alternatives to out-right murder we could certainly use a more elaborate imprisonment system. On a previous server I played on there were factional holding cells for captives / prisoners with killable NPCs, bashable doors and pickable locks. This I believe would go a long way in giving players the power to both avoid killing PCs and also allow prison-break options. (I'm personally of the mind all guards should be killable, period, no questions asked. Guardsman Samson lives on an island with 500 lvl 30 characters, he can't be expected to live forever.)

Plus it also alleviates some of the need for DM moderation of city gates etc.

As for a wounds system I totally endorse it, and no one has ever told a player they can't take creative liberties in causing ADDITIONAL damage to their character at their own discretion, in fact in my experience it is viewed on rather favorably.

I think there's a huge disconnect in the desire to have conflict but also having entirely invincible settlements. You literally cannot siege Cordor, Kohlingen, Wiltun or Tarkuul because the guards are flat-out immune to damage. This I believe should also be looked into to help with allowing players more liberties and power in general.

Eeheh. There was never an orphanage fire, and the perceived Thayan threat to the kiddos was a plate a freshly baked cookies. Your enthusiasm is admirable, but your facts are off!

But I'll explain the Amian Gitmo. And it's actually something that has been naturally in the works by two player factions and a city. So I'll try to explain it in vague terms, to preserve IC efforts.

Imagine ruins in the most inhospitable environment you can. An entire network of abandoned mining shafts, quarters, ancient civilization architecture. A major power decides to use this facility to store High Risk, top priority prisoners. They staff it with guards, anti-magic personnel. They work the prisoners on the natural resources, punish them severely. Keep them under close watch-- and they open this service as a gesture to other powers. "We'll store your most-wanted criminals." In result, they get favors, labor force, and reputation.

It could be staffed with PC's as well as NPC's. Prisoners can then RP in a very dynamic setting. The NPC's can be made in a way that any DM can take them over, in case someone gets conflict of interest as a prisoner. For the most part, prisoner players are confined (when unsupervised by a DM) to 'The Commons', with the other inmates, or to quarters. Somewhere where they can interact with others and embrace the setting. When a DM wants to, he can swing over, possess guard or inmate NPC's, and stir mini events. Foster environmental flavor.

Outside players could get involved in numerous ways. I would imagine that the prison would charge a fee for captives. 500,000 gold for a captive from a major city's authorities. 1,000,000 from anyone else. This way, non-city authorities can still transfer prisoners, but at a steeper cost. We would want the prison to be viable for everyone to use. And the prison would have to basically say, "Once they're in, they're in. They're in our justice now." A steep ransom could be paid to release prisoners before their date. Maybe small trials could be held with information provided. Just enough to claim due process, but it would be fairly corrupt and brutal. Outside players could pay for visiting hours under guarded protection. Outside players can stage rescue attempts, infiltrations, hostage exchanges, and more.

Both good and evil could get locked up, here. And then forced to live together in the harsh environs of Amia's mega-prison. In house gangs could form, relationships turned complex. Maybe a few sympathetic or overly brutal guards. Good and evil npc inmates.

Bad guys would want to send people there, because... The thought of Tuomas in prison makes them happy. Good guys could send people because they need these dangerous, murderous prisoners stored safely in a way that doesn't hurt them. And while people may time to time escape, it's still a better solution than what they can do now. And prisoners would enjoy being there with frequent DM interactions, other PC inmates, and a dynamic and functional environment.

It appears that like this topic's predecessors, we will be leaving things as they are. Take a look at the previous topics, and be astonished how often the same thing can be discussed while avoiding to take a real step to improve it. I will leave you guys and gals to it.

OpenTheRift wrote:

You literally cannot siege Cordor, Kohlingen, Wiltun or Tarkuul because the guards are flat-out immune to damage. This I believe should also be looked into to help with allowing players more liberties and power in general.

They are not flat out immune to damage. They are set to plot characters because the DM team does not want people killing NPC without their supervision. If you want to kill an NPC, call a DM of that respective location and I am certain he will be more than pleased to indulge your attempt.

Mr. Hackums wrote:

Eeheh. There was never an orphanage fire, and the perceived Thayan threat to the kiddos was a plate a freshly baked cookies. Your enthusiasm is admirable, but your facts are off!

If you are telling me, constantly being called "child killer" over nothing is a thing here, that the bullshit runs this deep without being stomped out...

Mr. Hackums wrote:

Eeheh. There was never an orphanage fire, and the perceived Thayan threat to the kiddos was a plate a freshly baked cookies. Your enthusiasm is admirable, but your facts are off!

Please tell me you're joking, here because I'm pretty certain this actually happened in the server's history, Hackums.

Aside from that, you do have an interesting concept in mind based on what you're describing.

Given the nature of such a place I would recommend setting down conditions straight off the top for any PCs to be involved there, and as well anyone to be sent there. I'd also make sure to have a reliable enough set of personnel who can handle the RP, both players, AND DMs alike.

---

And Since it was posted, Dead I'm glad you brought up that point. You, if you really want to, CAN actually attack settlements and inflict damage under DM supervision. They just don't want someone on a random lark to go killing people in a rage and then have the PCs come to them after the fact with 'Hey I did this' .

I'm not joking, Gyrmia. I know an orphanage fire happened a long time ago by an old Thayan group. I was under the impression that BornToKill was referencing the recent orphanage dilemma involving Thayans, in which there was no fire.

How to garner positive conflict.

Who is online