Hey peeps,

We touched on this a little in the Great Amia Summit of '15, but I think it's important to talk about it here and bounce ideas off each other. I've dealt with a lot of Good vs Evil conflict RP here on Amia and on other servers, so this is a discussion I've had a LOT and I think I can offer valuable input.

I think the core of the 'problem' with conflict/evil RP on Amia has a lot to do with what happens after that conflict leads to fighting between characters. Eventually a 'loud' evil character, a character who openly goes around killing, torturing, and causing trouble, is going to be caught or killed.

As a player, I have never wanted to permakill someone's character. I don't think any player wants to kill another player's character. We understand that people put a lot of time, effort, and thought into their characters and most of us appreciate the RP that an evil character can bring to the server by shaking things up.

That being said... When it's the same evil character doing the same evil things again and again and again.. There really are only so many times we can come up with ways for our characters to 'accidentally' leave the bad guy open for revival. I don't want to permakill any characters, but if a character is going around torturing and killing, my character definitely will want to kill them permanently. I can find wiggle room to let them escape/be found and revived/whatever the first ten or so times.. but eventually, it won't make sense anymore.

For the players involved, it becomes an awkward exercise in trying to force higher and higher levels of stupidity into our characters to leave an out for the 'bad' character to get away.
I don't get frustrated by these things because, honestly, I have a lot of fun either way, but I can understand other people getting frustrated by it.

"Tom tortured my wife so I killed him!"

"Tom tortured my wife so I killed him again!"

"Tom tortured my wife so I killed him more this time!"

"Tom tortured my wife, so I guess I should kill him even harder this time.."

"Tom tortured my wife again.. better find him"

"Tom tortured my wife again.. oh."

"Tom tortured my wife? Meh."

Good characters far outnumber Evil characters. Any evil character that goes out and openly does evil things is going to find a mob of do-gooders after them eventually. And that mob of do-gooders will eventually get tired of killing that evil character knowing that he's just going to come back the next day and start up again.

This isn't something that only good characters deal with though. The same thing happens when the evil character finally catches that asshole paladin who keeps foiling his plots. Naturally, the evil character would want to kill the paladin permanently.. otherwise he'll just come back to ruin plots again!

But we can't/don't want to force a permadeath, so we try to find more and more outlandish ways to let the other character off.

I've dealt with this issue a lot over the years. I'm not sure there is a way to 'fix' it. I think we all just need to be a little more careful and realistic with what we expect from each other as players.

Ugh. Evil.

What bothers me about "evil" in D&D (and by extent Amia) is that it is most often downright cartoonish in its execution. Summon fiends. Sacrifice people. Murder innocents. Spread disease. Laugh evilly. That's essentially what evil is in D&D.

No. You cannot seriously interpret evil as "ruthless" or "Mass Effect Renegade". That's (Lawful) Neutral. Neutral means killing because you have to, or because it's just plain the most efficient way of resolving a problem. Evil means killing because you enjoy it, because it empowers you, because it feels good. Genuine malice is the difference between evil and neutral.

Overall, I can't take Evil seriously. By extent, I can't take Good seriously. Both are just as juvenile in concept and execution - especially since the one thing that could have made Good and Evil interesting, being the constant and powerful temptation of evil has a negligible presence, if at all.

To get back on topic...

This is always going to be an issue, because respawning is inherent in the system and we don't do imprisonment. For some reason.

_________________
Aernoud Van Brabant: Heir of the House. Proprietor of the Beer Wagon.
"Go to the Mayfields, have a pint, and wait for this to blow over."
Aurelius: Sunmaster of Amaunator. Contemplative. Aspirant to Transcendance.
"Sol Invictus"

First I'd be worried about the unnatural obsession tom has with your wife.....

Blatant and open evil is always going to get squashed by the good guys. Now, if you've got a sneaky and more "rot em from the inside" view, I see that working a lot better than killing peasants over and over again.

As I said in the summit, the big eye-opener for me was where a player permakilled their character after the actions of one of my PCs. My PC had every intention of killing them in a way that they wouldn't come back from and the player even asked me "is there any way he could come back from this?". I of course made it clear that I and no player could ever make him do that, but in the end, I think he decided just to call the character quits.

The summit transcript is apparently as long as a Moradin's beard, so I'll just reiterate my observations:

1. Evil actions. It often appears when people say "Evil can't win on Amia," it's involving some sort of PvP. For a lot of folks, it seems like evil is killing someone and then getting away with it, with no recourse. Well, that just sets you up for the Power Ranger, monster of the week syndrome. You kill someone, they come back, they get their friends and come fight you again. Maybe it's time to start coming at if from a different angle. Rob. Cheat. Subvert the young and malleable. Corrupt the innocent--teach a kid to steal! Kick a dog. Look out for numero uno. There is a wide grade of actions on the evil scale that don't amount to "lol do what I say or I kill you cuz that's what ebil does." Tarkuul gets crap from people it somtimes for not being "real evil" but honestly, the settlement can do a great job of it. They keep their head down and do what they want without making a big show of it. You don't see good characters waging holy crusades against other PCs and holding them at checkpoints. They are mostly reactionary. And that leads to my second observation.

2. Reactions. Like Krin demonstrates, so often the response to any slight from one party to another is to kill them. It doesn't have to be torture, you could call someone's outfit ugly. There are tons of ways for both evil and good to answer each other that doesn't come at the tip of a sword. Usurp their political power. Slander their name. Buy up all the X so they can't buy it. Trade quips and walk away. This is for both sides. Not every interaction between two differing parties/alignments/races has to end in using the PvP widget. Don't metagame the knowledge that your PC can come back. For all your character knows IC the victor could throw their body into a Gate to literally never be seen again. There should be some hesitance to initiating hostilities that would solve yet another one of our issues. If you want death taken seriously then have your characters take it seriously. Would you watch a story where, even if it were possible, the characters are always killing each other and coming back? Sure, but you'd want to see them spray paint each other's houses, steal each other's horses, and then the season finale would be a fight or something. That again leads to another and final point.

3. The better story. I think Krin pointed this out in the talk too. Dying and then getting right back in the face of your killer is usually not fun on either side. It makes everyone feel a bit ineffectual--which says something when killing another PC is supposed to be the biggest "exclamation point" you can render IC. So I challenge the playerbase to do what makes for the neater story. Not just for you, but the overall interaction. If you dispatched an enemy and they showed up on the block 5 minutes later, how would you feel? Yeah, you can, but that's not cool for anyone. Unless you're someone who stakes their pride upon "my character iz best, I always winz!." Those people will and have eventually washed out anyway on our server. But for those who actually enjoy roleplay, we can be bigger men and women about it. So if you die, slink away for a while. Doesn't mean you have to not play your character for a while, just don't come back to the victor's face immediately. Even from your perspective, which makes for the better tale of revenge: munchkining your knowledge of our death system and killing the Pc 5 minutes after they killed you, or plotting, planning, and coming back with a dramatic flair a month later at the PC's wedding, up on a ledge with lightning in the background and then they gasp in horror, with a "You?! But... it can't be!!."

That's actually much longer than what I said in the talk I think, but that's what happens when I'm given time to re-read and look over things.

_________________

Hey, it works the other way, too. There are only so many times that goodies can fuck up your evil plans and purposefully be a pain in the ass before you start to wish perma-death was easier to dole out.

Be considerate of other players more so than yourself and you should avoid conflict 90% of the time. There's always a few bad eggs. It's how Laura doesn't have the Crusades bearing down on her front door everytime I log in.

_________________
Elwyn Sabel - Laura Jarshall - Mordoc Ebonhand

Discord: Bhaalorian#5715

Actually, there's a point to be made there. Sure, it's not very satisfying for Good to kill Evil over and over again, but what about the other side of the coin? It seems to me that Good isn't really playing ball if they're just as (if not more) unwilling lose in a permanent way.

Anyway, I think a lot could be solved if openly Evil characters had a refuge, such as a pirate town no paladin dares enter or something. Drow and necromancers have their cities, but everyone else is very vulnerable.

_________________
Currently playing:
Aven Brinyflask
Safaya Dalai
Riyit
Chsera Hile

(Credits to Raua for the sprite, sauce -here-.)

I wanted to rebuild Uhm into a pirate town, move the people of West Cordor there, and then sink the rest of Cordor into the ocean.

But, apparently Uhm isn't going to be rebuilt.

I would like to point out that Tarkuul isn't just for Necromancers and mages. There's the Living Guard who take all sorts of people regardless of their creed, so long as they don't act out of line with the City's laws. And Tarkuul, after recent(ish) plot changes, is now a literal city with a bustling population of actual people who do all sorts of stuff.

Sure, there's more opportunity for Mages and Clerics, but doesn't mean everyone else can't do a bit of nosing around.

_________________
Elwyn Sabel - Laura Jarshall - Mordoc Ebonhand

Discord: Bhaalorian#5715

ROFL!!


I agree, Solvaras. I didn't want my character to be the classic maniac out-of-control CE (he does have /some/ wisdom) but I did want to have my character follow the CE code, as it were. The mind set is selfishness to the extreme with no boundaries on getting his way and no guilt about the collateral damage. This was most interesting in a CE society. Turns out getting caught acting CE against an evil society in an evil society gets you the same reaction as getting caught in a Good society. It was also great fun since the RP was great and the players made it interesting and impactful.

It wasn't centered on killing folks, although there is definitely killing for pleasure involved I kept it mostly to PVM.... mostly.

It is difficult to come up with evil plans that are new and inventive. And even when you have a really good plan, at some point the plan is finished win or lose and then what?

Then to Krin's point, what do you do with the ne'er do well when they get caught? Attempt to mind wipe them into thinking they are a Jedi and have them hunt down all their associates? Sell them to the Illithids? Put a geas on them? Chain them to the fountain in Kohlingen? Trap them in the Eternal Orders base and make them scrub the floors and replace the incense and freshen the holy water? Give them to Rosery Doodlekins so she can convert them to godliness using Hin shinnagins?

It might be wishful thinking that the evilers might stay clear of the folks that killed them for a few weeks. But it's a good suggestion.

_________________


2015 Mr. AMIA with the Fabulous Estara ~ 2015 Best Developed SOB Character: Rith'tar

I always wanted Amia to be a bit more shady in general. The gentleman's club was a good thing in this sense, but there should be similar part of cities in every town imho. All of Amia seem to have PC's that struggle to be honest. Simple ways would be to use more mercenaries, as guards for pc's or instead of soldiers settlements could hire mercenaries (NPC's and PC's alike).

Anyway that's besides the point, to put my two cents in here: what characterizes an evil character is that he takes pleasure in his misdeeds, and they would walk out of their way for this pleasure. To put it in perspective and to draw something like a line: Neutral characters on the other hand does evil deeds because it's necessary for the goal they search, but they don't take pleasure in it (it may be to reach a goal that gives them pleasure though!).

_________________
I am not weird, I am limited edition

I've had just as much, if not more of a problem with this as an evil character dealing with good characters attempting, failing, returning, and attempting again to kill/thwart my own evil character.

What I've done, as the evil side, was to endeavor not to kill my opponent. And that worked really well, I thought. For instance, instead of simply PvPing, winning, and leaving it at that, the Thayans would subdue a person, and then publicly torture/ridicule them-- only then to leave them alive to feel the pain and suffering of being incapable to act and save their companions from similar fates.

If we're being honest, roleplay is much more fun when your character is alive. For all included.

With Evil, I've found, it's easier to justify leaving someone alive. It's an example of power: "I'm powerful enough, that I don't need to kill you. You're insignificant, etc, etc." For Good, I recognize that it's hard to come up with compelling reasons why you should let an evil, mass-murderer live.

But there are two things I can offer:

As a good guy, be certain not to lump all conflict/evil into the same tier as mass-murdering killers. And consider carrying a bludgeoning weapon to subdue a thief, instead of running him through with a blade. That way, he remains alive, and you can go through imprisonment/trial Rp. Differentiate between evils that demand swift death, and others that require lesser punishment. If you can develop these contingency plans before the actual mobbing-up takes place, then you won't have to act on the fly, and feel like it's too forced.

~~~

The problem, simply put, is that evil is too great a minority. The evil characters have no choice but to group up and make themselves extremely effective in order to deter the eventual goodly mob. Krin suggests that it's simply inevitable, and that after a certain amount of wicked deeds, a good group of players is going to rally, overcome, and beat you-- and that we should cope with that. Frankly, I see that as an inherent flaw. There is no chance for say, a Joker character to establish himself as a suitable, fitting evil without the right amount of henchmen-- and delicacy.

The Amian 'Movie' is incredibly dull, when the gut reaction is to group up en masse and to brute force the bad guy. The problem is that I can't blame the good guys for doing so. If it works, why would they change? The problem isn't in the players, who should never be expected to gimp themselves so. It's in the lack of DM support for fledgling evil factions. I've yet to see a promising conflict faction get on their feet. By the time the DM's are willing to help and consider the group legitimate enough to award them faction bases, aid, legitimacy-- it's often too late. The good guys have more than likely already roflstomped the group. And once that happens, frankly, the story is largely over. Unless a bad-guy group can come up with a really compelling vengeance plot.

Ultimately it falls to players disliking conflict in general. And when players bring too much conflict by means of repeating instances of CvC time and time again, it rouses more ire between players because they simply don't like it like that. And then it falls back into trying to create role-play conflict, and then there's a lack of support so they go back to option A.

_________________
Elwyn Sabel - Laura Jarshall - Mordoc Ebonhand

Discord: Bhaalorian#5715

And I will also say that the problem as an evil faction, is that I'm compelled to choose between a smaller faction that has greater RP quality, or including more 'grunt muscle' that builds my group's strength.

It's a balance, see. Because I want to create enough group strength that I deter good guys from trying the age-old mob technique. I want you to scheme. To feel that pressure of being unable to stand up against the group, to fear walking about at night.

But the more people I add, the less control I have as a faction leader to direct the faction toward an aim I feel that will produce comfortable results for other players. When it becomes harder to control, that's when we see things like a few faction members producing conflict that I didn't want to do, or in a style I didn't approve of.

And often times, there are arbitrary numbers set. For instance, I might have to have six people to be considered a faction, and to be considered for having DM support.

If there is an aspiring evil character who has the potential to develop conflict, even if it's only one or two characters, the DM team should strive to actively support that PC by means of PLC's, NPC goons, influence, 'bases'. Anything to help them create conflict.

It should be unfair. If you're sitting in your chair, and thinking that the current Amian conflict paradigm is okay how it is currently, then I simply don't know what to say. It needs fixing, we need to encourage and develop a better presence of evil. That takes cooperation.

If the DM's feel that there should be some kind of sacrifice, or cooperation beforehand that's fine. A time period of ~6 months, for example. Give them a shelf-life, so that no one is concerned that the extra DM attention will lead to a character reaping unfair benefits and to use them for personal gain in the long run. Evil is, and should always be, about storytelling, atmosphere, and conflict for others. It's a selfless role (even if its a selfish character). Or perhaps, instead of having random evil players cropping up out of nowhere, and DM's scrambling to determine who they should support, DM's should make an option available to players to request a 'Conflict Character.' They coordinate with the staff, include a few other players maybe. They work their story into the background of Amia's lore with the help of staff members, and then receive benefits like expedited NPC influence. This way, also, the DM can help supervise the conclusion of the conflict character/faction.

The players don't have enough resources, and are too severely outnumbered to make anything impactful. They need help. Devise a system that could help make it work, and you could see really positive changes.

Conflict could do with more support, yes. But the problem is that small groups ultimately have nothing to do that is evil on this server other than to pointlessly fight other players.

Small roaming factions have been around before, but they never really seemed to have anything to do other than sit around being pretty evil. What I'd like do see is the DM's step in and say something along the lines of...

'Here is a ritual salvaged from the orcgate wars which will let you summon an avatar of your chosen god of evil. They will utterly wreck your enemies.'

Or...

'You have found magical orb which lets you tame dragons of X color to your own ends. They will utterly wreck your enemies.'

Or...

'This is images of the lords of waterdeep all engaged in shameful activities involving whips and whipped cream. You can use them to blackmail these people into doing something to support you. If they hire mercenaries, they will utterly wreck your enemies.'

Give them something which they can use in order to potentially force a 'win' condition. And then let the good guys scramble in order to stop them from using these plot hooks to their own ends. Then help it along so that the good guys? They win. But only after a long struggle. And let those evil players stand over their altars/magical orbs/amateur pornography and deliver a totally wicked evil monologue, just before one of the good guy players makes a one in a million throw of their sword to shatter the one thing their plans depend on, and then the evil players throw a smoke bomb and flee to be a continuing menace upon the world.

Provided that those evil players know that they're along for a ride which will not ultimately end in them unfairly crushing the entire server as everyone knows it? I don't see why these sorts of things aren't done.

_________________
Player of:
Asya Goodmonsdottir - Knight of Lesser Gods.
-Winner of 2014's "Razored Tongue" Award, and Emcee's pick "Authoritarian of the year".
Jannah Vindle - Mistress of Coin.

Largely agree with Elorathal in that Evil is rough to enact, it's more feasible to run aggressive neutral for conflict. [Going to see the validity of that soon enough, hopefully] The cartoony aspect of "we kill you and you just come back" is on both sides, evil can murder everyone in kohlingen 4 days in a row and they're "just going to come back". With that in mind it's unfair to pin that "cartoony interaction" solely on the bad guys. Which leads us to the endless "solve it with pyrefire and pseudo-permadeath" dilemma that seems to be the calling card of the infamous mob. Additionally it's unfair to pin the blame of PvP escalation solely on the bad guys, it's a learned response at this point that you squelch troublemakers with a mace to the face. I believe everyone would benefit from reexamining their toolbox for ways to initiate and deal with conflict.

The inevitable mobbing, and heavily weighted community polarization on good/neutral vs evil has forced the hand of evil/conflicting characters to power up to a respectable status, as Hackums has explained.

This sort of understanding makes me wonder why people feel that "you don't have to be level 30 to really play Amia". I mean have you tried playing a world-shaking evil character? Have you tried going against the grain? I can tell you from countless experiences that once you grind the gears enough people just start whipping out their swords and prepare to eviscerate ya. In addition to this there's also the heavily devalued (and highly restrictive) gold/resource aspect of Amia. I remember at some point I was advised it cost 100m to build a structure, and that's not something anyone but a lvl 30 could obtain semi-reasonably, even then that is asinine and absurd though.

If we had a system to request "built" characters, or a method of expediting the process of getting to that playable point on conflict-oriented characters we'd probably see evil, and general troublemakers, more willing to just die. We might even see more evil since people would be able to get to that playable state more reasonably (this would help with the incredible imbalance of good/neutral/evil representation on the server). Which would in turn provide gratification of a job well done to the heroes, rather than frustration that they will just be doing the same thing again in 24-48 hours.

Given Amia's very very heavily favored good/neutral atmosphere evil will always receive the short end of the stick if it goes to upset the status quo, or cause enough of a ruckus. With that in mind I believe that there definitely is an expiration date on certain evil characters, like Hackums said factions will rise and once they're bashed good enough that's it, no bringing it back it's just gone. This sort of finality is powerful, it's a literary tool that Amia doesn't have access to, partly because of player culture and partly because it's pretty grueling to ask someone to level a new character every time they are bashed hard enough.

Vigilant DM support of conflict/evil factions would also go a long way. I have always loved the idea of DMs sponsoring groups.

Permadeath will never not be a player's sole discretion, save weird DM rulings. No one can really blame you for wanting to keep your character regardless of how asinine it makes a story that people are trying to create. There are some ways to make it more appealing to the playerbase though...

_________________
bad man

These conflict characters should be designed to eventually die. We can practice concluding characters and conflict with the help of DM supervision and assistance. We solve the cyclical problem, we solve the lack of evil presence, and the credibility of strength dilemma.

I don't want to talk about Good and Evil. I want to talk about people playing antagonists, on all sides of the cubic fence. Those characters that challenge the do-gooder status-quo in one way or another.

Personally, I'd love for my character to take a more antagonistic role. His evolution as a character and within the setting have set it up quite well. But I have no idea how to go about it without getting, as put so eloquently by Hackums, immediately roflstomped. He was turned into a pseudo-pariah simply for putting his foot down on certain issues. I can't imagine how being an active opponent would work, without compromising what my character is.

_________________
Aernoud Van Brabant: Heir of the House. Proprietor of the Beer Wagon.
"Go to the Mayfields, have a pint, and wait for this to blow over."
Aurelius: Sunmaster of Amaunator. Contemplative. Aspirant to Transcendance.
"Sol Invictus"

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=77956&hilit=evil+conflict

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=73414&hilit=evil+conflict

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=73332&hilit=evil+conflict

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=72574&hilit=evil+conflict


viewtopic.php?f=2&t=70859&hilit=evil+conflict

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=70411&hilit=evil+conflict

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=67315&hilit=evil+conflict

Just a little light reading on the history of conflict and evil on Amia.

_________________
bad man

_________________
Abernathy Hearthart, Salandran Healer (similar to my avatar picture of the lovely Jordan Madley )
Azorgl da Mercenary, Cigar toting Ogre...hero?

<3

I will only add, that after that evil group gets roflstomped before establishing, it's a doubly devastating defeat, because "what's the point of trying again, if even the DM's are against you"? Those are harsh words, i understand that, but by extension of the DM's lack of support of that little bit of player driven chaos, the evil is left without a playing field.

_________________
Isra Médéa - Unaora Quivyre - Xundiira - Dûrvilg

Yeah Hackums just gets it. Anyone who has any sense of quality and chooses to stir the pot knows this too. As it is right now - it's more like a charity. No evildoer considers going for all the effort it takes to stabilize and grow, if he doesn't believe he is able to deliver a thrilling story to the community. Get real people.

Also guess what would such vocal conflict supporters do, should the evil ever won the day, tipping the balance out of favor for the heroes?

A quote from a different, yet relevant thread.

_________________
Mark it zero!

A lot of what has recently said is true.

I have an evil character that I have plotted and planned soooo much about. So many grand, sneaky plans that are left unhatched because, well, what's the point? There is the general sentiment among all good/neutral/evil players that playing Evil is pointless. That there is no real DM support, save for isolated pockets (Tarkuul aka not-really-evil, Aurilites, etc) and that the good guys will just roflstomp the baddies.

Again, we really need to address this. The server needs conflict and it needs to have DM support. It's just the way it is. We used to have tons of it; not there's hardly any. It wasn't even always DM-supported, Evil just was able to do things. What happened?

_________________
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

just to point it out...evil has won many times on amia, people just didnt notice it, but those that did evil where just very good at hiding it, plotting is key for evil.

and perhaps if evil factions like that banites that just won a good part of the server, kicked out the war knights, and then promtly vanished had stayed around, the dms might have a little more faith in evil as a player plot device.

It seems soo rare that evil does anything but pvp now (ofcause excluding you lovely buggers plotting in the darkness, tarkuul im looking at you), you dont win with pvp, because people will smack back, and guess what there are more goodies than baddies.
Smart evil is the only way to "win" as evil, it has been done alot of times, very well, but you will get nothing handed to you on this server, dms shouldnt hand over half of cordor to evil..oh wait

And there is alot of DM support, but when was the last time you requested dm attention on the forum via pm's?

send a pm, write up what you are thinking and have dm's look it over so they can be informed when you are on, and help you if it is nessesary

_________________
-Ja'acira Arrows'R'Us
-Balorin Wolfhammer- A dwarf so old he remember when the Beer stein was invented
Saisha Jai'diem Knight of bahamut, and abit of a looker

A little note here. I completely agree with the dire, dire need to give evil factions some love, possibly granting them an edge in form of DM support. Moreover, I long intended to propose digging back up the forum form people could sign to enter "hardcore mode" and thus allow a bit of consequences to carry over to our characters, short of permadeath, unless it would come at the very peak of a lengthy interaction.

The problem with Evil/Conflict in Amia is in my opinion closely tied to another old topic, that is to say the need to reduce the availability of game breakers such as resurrection, regeneration, wish, restoration, remove curse etc. Not exactly to make the unavailable, but to make them much harder, less effective and/or far more tolling to perform (rare or expensive components, hefty xp cost, HEFTY gold cost etc etc).

To support this idea, I will pinpoint Ego's Ostland plot. What made it so fun was being cursed and not having an immediate way to fix this. Of course being cursed was eventually fixed, but it brought around plenty of character development. We were fighting against blatantly evil PCs and NPCs and it was more than clear there would have been some kind of long term consequence if either side had been caught.

While I don't advise going permadeath-crazy, I can safely state that permadeath is, even in servers where there is no restriction about killing others, an extremely rare occurrence. On Amia it could be substituted with a lengthy coma, an either permanent or nonpermanent delevel (making it impossible to grind back on top, as an example) stat-crippling that can't be removed and so on.

Permadeath on Amia seems like a very possible outcome simply because there is no other way to scare your opponent into complying. No matter how badly you'll damage another, it will take a very simple ritual or the use to a scroll to completely reset consequences without any sensible effort or the slightest chance of having to remain damaged forever. If villains could permanently scar the beauty-obsessed sharessan (and threaten to do worse the next time around) possibly sapping charisma in the process, there wouldn't likely be a need to kill anyone. If the sharessan persisted in bugging them, it would be like begging to be killed. If the villains had performed senseless evil in the first place, -they- would be begging to be killed. I can assure you that permadeath never comes without being fully deserved, and if so it can be retconned by resurrections and considered a blank slate (no more being resurrected and deciding to perma someone else... that's a bit of a dick move).

Then, of course, there is this observation. Evil comes in all sorts of flavours. There ARE ways to create permanent consequences through roleplay. A shout out to Tazul permanently breaking and corrupting good characters, a shout out to Symbaern splitting two lovers through politics, a shout out to all those smooth villains, xenophobes or misguided fanatics wrecking the lives of other characters without necessarily spilling blood.

A glare and a shake of my head to all those who think that walking around and randomly pvping people "'cause my evil god says so" without a hint of depth means being a good villain, and not a weirdo waving a sword with "kill me" written on their foreheads.

TL; DR

#1 Evil factions should be kickstarted with DM assistance, as it stands.
#2 Players in general should be allowed a variety of tools to make conflict meaningful without necessarily ending the story of another. In order to do this, game breakers and consequences-erasers such as resurrection, regeneration, wish, restoration, remove curse etc should be tweaked. Possibly sneaking a gold sink somewhere in there. Permadeath should be used, if at all, as the very last resolve.
#3 Evil dudes, use everything you can possibly think of to break your enemies. It's entirely possible to wreck another and make them simply want to kill themselves through RP alone.

Naivatkal: I believe, from what I've heard, that the main reason behind the downfall of evil evil people is...

N° 1: OOC whining. OOCly pointing fingers, OOCly accusing people of metagaming and ganking, and in general OOC hate for IC actions that needlessly carries over. I've seen it happen a few times. This should be heavily frowned upon.

N°2: Laaaack of consequenceeesss... people reacting to being killed with just coming back over and over, each time more brazen than the last. This is -sometimes- a reasonable IC action, but past a certain point it should turn into escalating consequences and permadeath. It's your choice, after all.

N°3: Attitude. Mayhap, once, we all were more prone to ignoring lore in favor of getting hurt a little bit more, conveniently forgetting to heal right away, forcing weakness on our characters. It is, perhaps, a habit worth digging back from the grave.

When it comes to people returning immidiately, which I have never actually experienced, why not just adf some penalties for a while after being resurrected after pvp? Afraid of this being abused? Use a widget to trigger the effect before pvp

And dm attention to evil factions decreases the possibility of it becoming all about pvp

_________________
I am not weird, I am limited edition

I rather like the Clock's suggestion of a "permanent handicap".

_________________
Aernoud Van Brabant: Heir of the House. Proprietor of the Beer Wagon.
"Go to the Mayfields, have a pint, and wait for this to blow over."
Aurelius: Sunmaster of Amaunator. Contemplative. Aspirant to Transcendance.
"Sol Invictus"

In my experience as a DM I found more players than I expected that were willing to play along with permanent damages and disfigurements and such. Such a thing really helps an individual's rp at times. I never actually had to force it on anyone to my recollection (nor would I have, I don't think.)

it is pc persistance that is the main reason factions survive, you can have as much dm attention as you want, but just look at what happens with kohlingen every half year, it all falls apart because lack of pc's, and they have a dediction

as for the points.

#1 Evil factions should be kickstarted with DM assistance, as it stands.

It has been done, many times, if they failed it was because of player inactivity and lack of commitment from players, not the lack of dm's, the evil factions that have survived was because of dedicated players, like all other factions, all of them stand or fall on the merits of thier leaders, without reddok and whurak I doubt barak runedar would still stand, look what happened to kohlingen as robert dissapeared, tarkuul with that vampire..thing..., avadon in wiltum, malandria in the grove, all of them have been lead by extremely devoted players and as seen in kohlingen resently when the player was gone, the faction died..fast(yes I know it might rise again, but it happened when yaston retired aswell), my point is dedication to your faction is what matters the most, those that survived the long time was because of dedicated players, there are exceptions like the old banites, but they fell apart because they where stupid enough to think building a castle in amia was a good idea, a certain amount of logic is needed aswell, and this should not be carried by dm aid, but by player innovation, as it has been by other factions.

I would also remind the ones complaining of lack of dm aid, that hte good factions took a long time to build up and letting new factions skip years of rp for the sake of making them more attractive..is just..meh, a kick in the face to the people who rped and fought for a long time to build thier factions

#2 Players in general should be allowed a variety of tools to make conflict meaningful without necessarily ending the story of another. In order to do this, game breakers and consequences-erasers such as resurrection, regeneration, wish, restoration, remove curse etc should be tweaked. Possibly sneaking a gold sink somewhere in there. Permadeath should be used, if at all, as the very last resolve.

Gold sink dosnt mean crap if you dont have any gold to begin with, death consequences is about the mentality of the server, and it is just as much a problem with the evils as the good, it will not be changed easily nor will it matter in the evil question, as the pvp evils this would affect would still be slaugthers, also death penalties in pvp caters to pvp builds, forcing people to pvp optimise to be a part of interfaction rp, which should be avoided at all costs, as it is too much to ask for players that if they want to be part of interfaction rp they have to be pvp builds or get butchers...

as for permadeath..no..just plain no..it will be a pvp fest if permadeath is enforceable.

#3 Evil dudes, use everything you can possibly think of to break your enemies. It's entirely possible to wreck another and make them simply want to kill themselves through RP alone.

meh, its a terrible attitude to think herassement to the point where people give up playing a char, is a valid tactic is just..meh.

_________________
-Ja'acira Arrows'R'Us
-Balorin Wolfhammer- A dwarf so old he remember when the Beer stein was invented
Saisha Jai'diem Knight of bahamut, and abit of a looker

it caters to pvp

_________________
-Ja'acira Arrows'R'Us
-Balorin Wolfhammer- A dwarf so old he remember when the Beer stein was invented
Saisha Jai'diem Knight of bahamut, and abit of a looker

That's exactly what I thought you would say. See, it's this attitude that forces an unbalanced paradigm to remain unbalanced.

Read again what I said about evil factions needing to be selfless, for the sake of conflict. I'll spell it out very clearly: An Evil faction, given 'unfair' support, would not be doing so to make it more attractive, but to be able to PRODUCE CONFLICT.

Yeah, you're right. If a well-played evil faction wanted to come on and play without any DM support, they could take a long time to build up. But during that entire long time, you're not going to be seeing any conflict. Is that what you'd like? And the odds remain starkly against them even surviving that long.

And if a conflict-based group of players are doing evil things that no one is noticing, it's not really helping the conflict paradigm. Unless they absolutely intend on making a grand move that throws everyone off their feet-- pulling back the curtains and saying, "Voila! Look, and see how I've schemed to where I am now! And how you're helpless to stop me!"

You have valid points about the weight of a faction's success or failure being on the shoulders of a faction leader. But with this in mind, there aren't really many things that could be done. That's a 'cause of death' that we can't really treat. And it happens on both sides of the paradigm.

You voiced the Banites as an example of a faction that succeeded and yet, fell apart. That's a fair conclusion-- but I don't think you understand why they did, what the circumstances were-- and importantly, if those circumstances are entirely relevant to what we're talking about here. Don't assume. If you want to know why the Banites scattered, ask them.

I have to say I don't agree with the gold sink idea. Not all things are that difficult or expensive to deal with. And where true res has been used in the past, I've always seen the cost of diamonds or actual obtaining of diamonds be required before it's given a go-ahead since the spell is a pnp one. And alot of things are overhyped and overused, Geas for for one.

I don't see why one group of players, good or evil, should get special dm attention and I will add that historically good factions have gotten alot less help from supernatural powers or deities than evil factions have.

If you want to play evil, go right ahead. If you huff and puff and make alot of noise in the form of PvP or whatever, the good guys -will- go all Liam Neeson on you. If you play it smart it may be more long term but not as exciting. If you manage to get a plot rolling with several players involved and get a DM's attention.. great! Cudos!

Giving an extra helping hand to new evil factions compared to others will just cheapen the players work and achievement when they actually manage to accomplish something and frustrate players of goodly characters in the end because the "enemy" is getting more help or feel the enemy is being "favored", thus end up creating animosity between players rather than characters.

And if you want to work out some sort of extended death situation with one of your opposing partners in RP, why not just ask the player and work it out that way? I've found plenty of players to be very nice people that have no problem of rolling with stuff or even concenting to pnp stuff that might muck up their char a bit for the sake of RP and intrigue as long as it's within reason and open to reprisals or rescue or whatnot.

And if they don't want to, fine, why try to force it on them by getting it cannonized by the rules? If it's valid for an event or whatever, I'm sure the DM watching will make sure to keep everyone in line.

There are plenty of ways to get good guys to back off, other than using something as cliché as mindrape or soultrap or whatever else you do beyond killing someone. Evil people have more tools at their disposal than good, because they don't traditionally mind crossing the ethical line in order to gain an advantage. Exploit that if need be, it's worked surprisingly well in the past against just about everyone except the EO. Those buggers be crazy.

_________________
Adair - Druid and part time treant cosplayer

As long as NWN continues to play like a comic book, where every conflict is ultimately resolved in a mass PvP fest, people (especially evils) will continue to feel that it's useless to make long-term plans because they'll be crushed in the end. The server collectively will never agree to forced permadeath, permanent death-induced handicaps*, or a ban on raises/resurrections**. The only thing approaching a solution that I can see is to move away from the idea that combat will solve everything. If the goodies can band together to destroy the bad guys' keep, what's to stop the evils from periodically annihilating small villages, or launching meteor swarms against the outskirts of Kohl or Cordor and teleporting out before anyone has time to react? Taking this to its extreme would leave Amia as a scorched wasteland. I think the goals have to be redefined as manipulation, subversion and corruption so you can't smoke out the nest of Evilites without destroying the entire town. DMs could aid this approach by having PR consequences for causing indiscriminate civilian deaths. The civilian population has to react to the PCs' actions.


* which would probably just turn into a justification for repeated PvP - if you can't kill them, at least cripple them to the point where they can't PvP you any more.
** making them horribly expensive only penalizes non-epics.

_________________

~Sharess on AmiaWiki~
Priestess, politician, prostitute
"[They] were moving in on me like Sharessans on a new broad in the bath house" - Tracer Bolt
AmiaWiki mod (mostly inactive)

What about the shelf-life I provided? I expected that players would be uncomfortable with fledgling evil factions getting more immediate support than other factions. I anticipated that reaction, and that's why I threw out a few caveats. I'll explain them in detail, then.

If a conflict-faction had no required 'end-state' that resulted in their demise, receiving additional help would be unfair, because they've received more benefits than others, and they've been able to arrive at the same ends as the long, determined factions without spending nearly the effort. Guys, I get that that feels unfair.

So then I proposed a time limit. A shelf-life. Would it still be unfair to receive faster benefits as an evil faction, if there was an agreement between the players and staff that eventually, and within X period of time, that they would be thwarted and potentially die? The staff can then enforce consequences, and break the cyclical nature of Amia's current conflict too.

This conflict idea is strictly temporary. Bearing that in mind, if it is temporary, and their aim is to provide positive conflict for others on the server then they need a boost to be able to match and give reasonable threat to good folks. Otherwise, they have no real legitimacy. I've watched Kohlingen forums and others where folks see a new group of evil, and they ICly shrug it off. There's no legitimacy to someone who wants to provide conflict now, without receiving DM help.

I support people planning for the long run. An evil/conflict faction that wants to make a permanent change to the server, and wants to survive to see that change. Sure-- take your time, build legitimacy, and eventually create conflict. But if that's the expectation for all of the players willing to create conflict, we're just not going to see good conflict for some time. This will be another stale period, and without any good practice in dealing with conflict, most of those players would rather place their stakes elsewhere then be so patient and gambling on whether or not their long-term effort will even give the server what it's asking for.

I've been veritably studying conflict paradigms on NWN servers for some time now. Amia's paradigm has been my large focus, because I've dedicated so much time to her. But recently, I've been exploring alternatives-- and they have neat ideas that create the same desired outcomes that we're seeking here.

Not without its problems, mind. No server has a clean, perfect conflict paradigm. Before others complain that I'm advertising another server here, I'm more interested in figuring out how or if it can be emulated on Amia.

So here goes:

On Prisoners of the Mist, there are (Atmospheric) Monster Player Characters. These are players who, after being required to have spent a certain amount of time on the server, can apply to the DM's, and receive a character that starts at a higher level, and with bonuses/vulnerabilities of that monster type. Every (A)MPC has a shelf-life, so every player requesting one does so with the explicit understanding that in X number of months, if their character is not permakilled, it will be peacefully shelved. The goal, as stated very clearly, is for these creatures to enhance the atmosphere of fear and danger for the server.

Obviously, this doesn't fit into Amia's culture word-for-word. But look at some of the things they are doing: Shelf-life, enhanced start to receive external legitimacy as being dangerous. An application process.

Another thing I've observed is the difference in levels forcing non-PvP conflict. For example, I could have a level 6 bard who has earned the attention of a level 17 Palemaster. Everyone my character spoke to, would warn my fledgling miscreant how dangerous this person was. How he was not to be trifled with. That difference in raw mechanical power forced me to interact differently with that palemaster. I had to scheme, to hide-- always watching my back. And likewise, for him, he knew that he was obscenely more powerful than I was. He knew that by simply killing me, he would extinguish all the atmospheric fear he'd built. It was easy for him to win via PvP. When he knew that, and when I knew that, it created a whole different atmosphere between our characters.

On Amia, there's not as great a distance in the minds of players. A level 30 should be able to challenge another level 30. When they can't, as seen with shifters, for example, players get OOCly frustrated. And I'm not ragging on players for complaining. I'm merely trying to point out that complaining about such a thing undoubtedly tells us that Amian players have an expectation that their personal character strength should reasonably match other character's strength.

It's what causes mob violence to be the go-to answer, in my opinion. Who would bother having to hide, scheme, and watch their back when they could just be with an excess amount of friends. Eventually, their numbers will overcome the badguy, because he's just not that much mechanically stronger. When both the antagonist and the protagonist are level 30, we're going to see players subconsciously believing that they can simply win if it came down to a fight. Therefore, fighting becomes the answer.

So how would we consider emulating this? Obviously, increasing the level cap is out of the question. And fairness has been engraved so deeply into this culture that giving antagonists unfair mechanical advantages would flip the entire table. This is why I suggested having DM support via NPC's. When that happens, it adds an air of uncertainty. "How many people -are- there? How deep does the corruption go? Surely we can't take an entire keep." While we may not be able to emulate a disparity in raw mechanical power, surely we could consider other forms of power: Rp power, influence, positioning, resources. The problem as I saw it (And why I leaped so early to DM support, without really explaining my process), is that these things either require a ton of time to build (And supervision throughout, regardless), or simple DM assistance.

One of the biggest problems that I'm trying to tackle in a dexterous, nuanced way is that players have the expectation that a certain amount of brute force will eventually work. You can read it in the previous posts, you can see it with how people act. What's more interesting, is that both sides of the paradigm use it, but don't like it when the other side does.

For instance, when I read that players are frustrated that PvP is as frequent as it is, but then also read that the eventual outcome to open conflict becomes mass horde PvP, I tilt my head.

So what I'm going to say might sting a little.

There was an event some time ago, where 3-4 evil PC's ended up setting up camp in the forest. The Dagger's Double folks, I'm sure you remember. Now, with a disclaimer, I found that style of conflict to be shallow on behalf of the DD-- but what troubled me more was the reaction of other players. Nearby players grouped up into some 20-25 person mob, and attempted to brute force the group, they were met with a prepared handful of players and ended up dying en masse.

The number of vitriolic, severe complaints I received from the fallen mob blew my mind. Players issued formal complaints about balance-- how 3-4 people should never be able to take on 20+. I think I received 6+ complaints in my Pm box that night. And what I wanted to say, but didn't.. is that "Yes, it's possible. Because it happened. Mob violence may not be the answer you need."

Players were more willing to complain OOCly than have their characters consider different solutions to the problem. At the root of this server's conflict paradigm, is the insidious expectation that eventually, no matter what, mob violence will prevail.

When the Dagger's Double organized for the above, they had actually done so with the intent to prove that mob violence would not solve their presence. I was in the conversations, I saw firsthand: They wanted to encourage other avenues of conflict RP, rather than simple mob violence. They wanted to demonstrate that it wouldn't work-- but in the end, efforts either increased to strengthen the mob violence, or to simply complain OOCly about its ineffectiveness. Maybe their way of doing it was wrong.

What I'm getting at, is that players on both sides of conflict feel trapped by the need for mob violence as a solution.


But that can change. That's what I'm trying to grapple with. I'm not trying to alienate or pinpoint players, I'm trying to find ways to encourage different behavior.

I rather like the idea of timed bad guys set to cause havok because it would likely put everyone in a different mindset. Rather than both causing havok AND trying to keep your char as safe as possible due to the effort you've put into building and shaping them, you're playing a char -intended- to loose or fade away. It's something I'd not mind giving a try to be honest.

However the reason I have problem with factions getting that sort of thing done is because it wears out the good guys. I've experienced it several times over the years where no matter how much work you put into it, something new always pops up that you're automatically expected to deal with, and half the server will icly complain at you if you do it and if you don't do it because most of the server automatically rises up against authority figures, be it zealots like the EO, evil oppressors like teh Banites during the banite wars or more recently, Kohligen trying to take the lead.

For me the last one finally completely burned me out because my own characters development constantly got put off on hold and were expected to help with everyone and everything and when people complained about it and didn't get help, that was complained about as well. Trust me, I've played in alot of groups, both good and evil over the years, and good guys get just as much grief and hardship as the baddies do. And both sides eventually die off for the same reason, players burning out or loosing interrest. At least that's been the reason for the factions and groups that I've been involved with, dying off.

If there was some way to adress that directly, the burnout syndrome caused by constant strife, then I think both good and evil factions would thrive more than they have in the past. As it stands now, the flame that burns twice as bright, burns half as long. Once in a while, throw a faction a curve ball that is not some sort of obsticle to overcome but a morale booster. I realize that's not an easy thing to solve but all I am saying is that IF there was some key to overcome it, I believe it would solve just about any faction's problems with "conflict fatigue".

_________________
Adair - Druid and part time treant cosplayer

I disagree, look at the Shrine, it didn't help that some people were dedicated (I was on almost every day for all night several times), but it never got any dm attention (at least not when I was online). The Shrine became a silent place, not because of the infighting, which just quickened the process at worst, but because it almost never got attention from DM's. Or at least that is my observation, because the Shrine was going quiet long before stuff stirred there despite that someone was online almost all the time. It's three parts that have to work for a faction to remain and be active, there has to be a working connection between the dm's, the leader (the connection between the members and the dms), and the members.

Anyway, to get more back to the point, I don't believe in permanent effects being forced onto players, but as I said temporary ones can be enough

_________________
I am not weird, I am limited edition

Interesting.

Maybe with tangible success, and a touch of permanency, they can feel as if they have made progress.


Ah! I have another idea. I remember when Kohlingen folks would hit by the same burnout by seeing the same type of foes rise and rise again. For instance-- when they beat the Banites in the old keep, only to see them surge back again later in a different cell. Their measurement of success is reasonably dwindled-- because no matter what they do, even if they succeed in epic fashion, similar bad guys end up coming back again.

So, what if DM's could provide incentives for new types of conflict?

There's player freedom, which may amount to groups of players trying to re-create a Banite faction on Amia. We can't really stop that. But if the DM's give tangible incentives to new types of conflict, and refuse old, re-hashed concepts, would that help?

That way, they can help supervise the direction of conflict on a broad scale, in a way that provides the good guys with a bit more closure after beating them.

That would definetly help alot because it allows the "winning" group to retain some measure or feeling of success rather than the sensation of repeatedly punching a bobo doll, and at the same time it would create more diversity.

Diversity not only between the opposing sides, but also introduce more people on the server to new ways of thinking, new deities, new avenues to pursue.. I think something like that would in the end do nothing but help the server and it's players broaden their horizons and keep things more interresting. It might not be feasable that all of them would succeed and thrive in the end, but it rewards innovation. And that's something I'm all for.

_________________
Adair - Druid and part time treant cosplayer

I loved seeing the Aurilite alternate beginnings, which is exactly the kind of direction I've been rooting for in regards to DM support of conflict factions. Furthermore, it helped as Amarice is well-known for being a dedicated player and DM. So some of the toils of faction leadership could be eased by her lifting.

But the Aurilites are kind of distant. I think we need more of these alternate beginning conflict stuffs, but with a concept that fits better into our server.

At the conclusion of the Reyes event, the good guys won. And good on them! Any future conflict should fit within this structure: It needs to be relevant to both servers. It needs to be mindful that the current authorities are largely good-based, and that they worked hard to achieve this. Any new conflict/threat that seeks to undermine this achievement should be reconsidered. Any new threat that acts as a large, authority figure should also be reconsidered. This is not an era for new Thayan, Banite, or other tyrants. The characters have worked too hard to achieve reasonable control. Introducing new enemies that come out of nowhere, but wield immense, open power unsettles this achievement and wears out the players.

I find this a really interesting route: Bearing in mind the achievements of the good guys, and how hard they've worked to reach success-- what kind of conflict would you like to see?

Now that the good guys have achieved veritable control, and the alliances are strong, perhaps something insidious? This is Amia's Unipolar moment. There are no viable competitors to the good-based alliances and control. Any new enemies should consider asymmetric conflict. If bad guys are in a minority, they should actually be a minority. Fighting from secrecy, committing murder, thievery, occult practices-- all from being hidden within the populace. Something like that sound better? Their goal shouldn't reasonably be to topple the new government, but just to survive and thrive within it-- with their own goals something far more sinister (And separate).

A Bhaalite cult of serial killers, seeking to return their god to power.
A thieves guild seeking fame and fortune, centered around large-scale heists (Stealing the Chalice of Siamorphe, stealing Ulrik's mustache). All strictly under a no-murder code, and in it only for the fame.
Add more?

Personally if I was in a group of 3-4 players and beat back a group of 20+ players, I'd understand their frustration and probably be raging myself at how we could win under such ridiculous odds. Such a large force should always be able to succeed over a lesser number in open-field battle. Alas, NwN wasn't made with logic at the forefront.

_________________
Elwyn Sabel - Laura Jarshall - Mordoc Ebonhand

Discord: Bhaalorian#5715

Lesser number, definitely-- but what about greater quality enemies? For instance, Reyes being super powerful, and requiring a bunch of people to take him down.

Small numbers of equal people should not be able to beat large numbers of equal people, unless there are severe errors/successes in strategy or a disparity in technology. I agree. But D&D's style of archenemies tends to be very powerful, smaller-numbered people.

You're absolutely right, though, Richard_Edmund. Players shouldn't necessarily be that strong. But isn't that kind of 4th wall knowledge? While the player may feel upset about what happened, the character's decision-making is really what matters. Should they be able to differentiate between NPC epic bosses, and really strong PC's?

Real world logic, as you're using, only applies so far. In the real world, we might see a Bruce Lee being able to take a number of opponents at once, but he can be overwhelmed. In a world with magic, however, someone can be very powerful in comparison to another. Personal power has far greater limits than it does in the human world.

If it makes any difference at all, I can't speak to what it is like to play an evil PC on Amia. I never have and there is a reason for that: my time as a DM taught me that the amount of horseshit the player of an evil PC would have to put up with is daunting and is a battle I don't want to get into. I would want people to appreciate my villainy, and instead I would get shouted down by the good establishment just for being a DM who stated, "Yeah, players of evil PCs have a rough time."

Is that constructive? I dunno. It isn't as constructive as I would like it to be, but it is honest! I guess it just needed saying because the imbalance was always so clear to me and I had the whole "overview" vantage point.

I'm gonna try to brainstorm some more conflict ideas that respect the achievements of good guys. I think that's a huge breakthrough. Thanks Gravemaskin, for bringing about the conclusion in such a civil manner-- especially after being the subject of such frustrations in the past.

Actually, given the (completely legit) tactics employed by the defenders it's easy to understand why the attackers lost. I wasn't part of that conflict at all, but I heard about the engagement and it was well played. But generally, yes, that sort of thing shouldn't happen. And no, I'm not going to give out any tidbits on what I found out ;p


Also along what Yoss said (and some others) player attitude has to improve for things to get better. It goes both ways, too, but I hear it more in the direction of goodies against baddies. We all need to lighten up

_________________
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

Oh, please remember, I didn't bring that up to discuss tactics, or anything of the sort. I very specifically wanted to use it only as a demonstration for how believing mob violence as an eventual successful strategy is detrimental to everyone involved. It's a dangerous example to focus on, but I'm hoping that the community can examine it from a step back.

And it's important to note that I'm not trying to degrade those who felt the way they did. I believe the problem is more fundamental to how our conflict works, rather than player perceptions. It'll be a tough expectation/culture to beat, but we can do it.

I didnt say anything about them not having dm support, but them getting advantages they didnt work for only shifts the problem to the good guys which I might add as a long time good guy player, that it is pretty frustrating dealing with evil groups on pvp rampages and no way of icly stopping them. they should earn rewards from dm's, but that dosnt mean they should not have dm support, dont put words into my mouth hackums, that being said, I like the idea of a more reward based faction conflict system of some kind, the biggest problem seems to be insentive for all factions.
Kohlingen goes dead because there is nothing to do basically >.< we dwarves keep busy, but we get rewarded for it, are we lucky with our dm, hell yes, but does the dwarves work thier arses off for it aswell..hell yes, I think its unfair to take away advantages from hard work for the sake of promoting conflict, which giving evil factions an artificial boost not earned through alot of rp would be in my eyes.
Is it bias, perhaps, but if it is, its because alot of players worked for it, does some factions stand on the shoulders of giants, yes, but I believe that those factions that work for it, gets rewarded, west cordor for one is a very good example of how its done in my eyes, tarkuul aswell.
simply rewarding people for gathering in groups should not be enough in my eyes, especially if they are just out there pvping which we have seen far to much off in the past. It becomes emty and to me atleast it becomes akin to whak'a'mole.

I just want one thing, some kind of sanity and intelligence from evil groups, if they have that, then they can go far, but right now amia island is dominated by neutral and good factions, to think that a evil group can set up camp and build a empire there, its, just not logical nor ic, they need to think outside the box, start in remote places like forstarrk (sp?), build up strength and so forth, I prefer a caluclated evil to one thrown in my face, I dont want conflict for the sake of conflict, I want something that is logical icly so my char can react to it logically aswell. If they spring up from day to day, then I might aswell be fighting mobs, cause thats what it feels like an endless grind with no rewards fighting these upstart pvp groups..its hollow emty and dosnt start any rp other than "yea *** killed someone, he must be stopped" que pvp responce, because its all there is.

Even if you gave, say banite a castle in amia *Cough*, the responce will be a seige then destruction, because it isnt thought through, you need a well organised faction to have a faction run or it grinds into the ground with self destructive ideas. Like pvp patrols outside kohlingens walls or setting up a church of bane within sight of a trade route, ofcause paladins and goodie two shoes wont stand for that, we will burn it down, because icly there are few things more dangerus.

smart evil, should be rewarded, mindless evil, should not, it dosnt promote rp, it promotes annoyance, and to identify where the smart evil is, then they need to have time to grow and prospor.

_________________
-Ja'acira Arrows'R'Us
-Balorin Wolfhammer- A dwarf so old he remember when the Beer stein was invented
Saisha Jai'diem Knight of bahamut, and abit of a looker

But what if I don't want smart evil? I just outsmart smart evil. But crude, violent, and cunning evil scares me. It doesn't have to be smart. Its anti-intellectualism leaves gaping puncture wounds in my carefully crafted designs and leaves me purple because just when I thought it would try to poison me with a well-placed cupcake, it just walked into my dining room, wrapped its hands around my throat, and strangled me to death before I even had a chance to pour it a glass of port.