I don't know. I don't think that's really as much the issue. Besides, some people powerbuild for PvE purposes only. Some players want to play strong characters. I'm not sure character strength has all that much to do with griefing anyway. Folks know I've made plenty powerful characters-- but I don't think I've ever been a griefer.

There's something inherently different in the mind of a griefer, who doesn't care for the community and enjoys conflict for the wrong reasons. That quality is hard to trap. But I honestly think we've weeded most of them out, over the years.

Or they just lost interest and went to grief people in a newer, shinier game.

Probably that, yeah. It takes some real dedication to want to grief people on Amia.

I don't know. I've had to come up with some whack ass backstories on a few characters just so I didn't have my ass handed to me by non-epic toon powerbuilds. Seems like griefing by default to me on a server that tries to be about RP rather than Powerbuilding.

The trend has always been that you could RP, but as soon as that Banite wandered by and told you to kneel or die your RP didn't make any difference. So, unless you contrived a weak ass reason why you min-maxed your toon and boss farmed for epic loot for weeks with whatever RP justification, you were screwed in most PvP. So, now you have a toon that just feels cheesy and you can maybe survive a fight or two, but now you're the griefer and everyone you might have conflict with you will also need a cheesy powerbuild to compete. Yay (sarcasm).

That might not be everyones definition of griefing, but I feel it is something that makes most players build first then justify second, if at all. Add to that the new restrictions on RP and backstories, I just don't know what the Dm's are going for. Really, how can you have powerbuilding and then bitch about really thin justifications for characters?

_________________
Thine taste in horrid footwear not withstanding, I did not say that thou were in fact an idiot, I merely implied that such things were self evident.

-Krrja

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

How would we police the quality of builds? So many things are circumstantial, too. X beats Y, Y loses to Z.

I can understand the frustration. I'm not trying to be dismissive, and I recognize that people have had negative experiences. I've had negative experiences too. But I stand by my statement that a good build does not equate to a griefer. Griefers often have good builds, if they're trying to harass people via conflict and excessive PvP.

To be honest, good gear has much more of an impact than build. I wish I could show you the vast mechanical difference between a Shifter/KC with phenomenal gear, and a Shifter/KC without. The build is incredibly strong-- but without the right equipment, you're entirely underwhelming. It used to be that shifters were incredibly potent without gear, but that has since reduced severely.

Then there's also player skill to consider too. I really enjoyed learning and ICly honing my sorcerer's dueling ability. Does he have a powerful build, or am I just good and practiced?

I'm wary of continuing on this train of thought, because I think it will devolve into a heated discussion on character mechanics.

It is my point of view and as such an opinion which is no less valid than anyone else. I wish I could make a point without excessive sarcasm and making people feel as if they may have been attacked in some way. I don't necessarily disagree, it is just something on my mind that I felt strongly enough to say out loud. I would like to have a solution, but I don't have one at the moment, perhaps something constructive can be built out of this discussion.

_________________
Thine taste in horrid footwear not withstanding, I did not say that thou were in fact an idiot, I merely implied that such things were self evident.

-Krrja

Sorry if my quip made you feel I was being dismissive, VitalTouch. I get your point. But it does make me beg the question: why police builds when the behavior is the problem? Policing the former restricts everyone, even those who are good builders but don't intend to use them to grief people. Policing the latter addresses the actual problem while leaving the playerbase with the freedom to do what makes them happy.

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

No, no. I don't think you're being heated. I'm anticipating heated response from others, to be honest.

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

Well, there is, and it was inherent in the paragraph you quoted. I disagree with your assessment that the powerbuild itself generates a player's behavior. I guess I could see how it would create in some players a temptation to be griefers, but my personal value system still says it is better to leave players' freedoms intact and focus behavior modification to the people who do become griefers. I suspect they would be in a small minority, but I have grown to dislike the whole "who is the minority and who is the majority" aspect of any discussion, since none of us a damn statistician.

I hope that clarifies things for you.

Why does it matter who wins? And you're right on many counts... many people who "grief" have moved on to shinier games to grief on. I'm not sure when the Banites did the whole "kneel or die" thing but it wasn't during the 2 years I was there. Almost every PvP encounter I was part of wasn't initiated by me. Still, people didn't complain about the lack of conflict RP. (haha, now look)

Shouldn't it just matter that it itself matters? The consequences and the meaning of why it happened in the first place should be important.

Without permadeath, and even with viable revised PvP rules, the option to not engage in combat will still be there. The only thing that will be missing is the ability to engage in a PvP and the backing knowledge that nothing at all with happen of any consequence.

So many viable solutions even apart from Pony's solution have been discussed in the past. But even more so than mechanics there is actual verbiage in the rules that can change that would make it far less pointless.

Yes, I get it. Some people don't like PvP. But since nobody likes the PvP rules, people tend to avoid anything that might remotely have a possibility to escalate to PvP, so paladins walk by skeletons and zombies and goblins just chill in towns no questions asked. Drow just hang out on the road without a helmet or Eillistraee insignia. It's a real fucked up situation, if you ask me. It almost looks lifeless and when you mix black and white, all you end up with is grey.

_________________
a.k.a. Audrey Zinata

While Mimiron may disagree with me on the quality of these changes, Vital, we should recognize that Amia has in a lot of ways looked at unfair abilities and put limitations on them.

-The change to devcrit
-Making Hips at level 6 for Shadowdancers
-Adding a hips timer
-Tweaking Greater Sanctuary
-Changing Time Stop
-Shifter overhaul 1,2, and 3.
-Paladin/blackguard saves limited by the number of class levels.
-Changes to Bigby's
-Requiring both Cleric domains to match the God's portfolio
-More that I can't recall right now..

We've already put ample limitations on unfair builds, or builds that offered stark advantages at minimal costs. I just don't really see anything as blatantly powergamish these days. And my opinion is in complete agreement with Yoss.

I'm not saying bow out of the discussion, I'm just saying that there are people that -really- disagree with you, and some of the things you're saying can be construed as inconsiderate to people that simply like to have good builds. While I'm not as easily upset, I can see how people might take personal offense.

I don't think policing builds more is the answer. I agree with Yossarin that a powerbuild does not necessarily generate a players behavior. There are many very strong builds where the PC is not going around picking fights with every other PC they encounter. My experience has been that Amia players are a good sort more often than not. There will always be build savants who take on the challenges of how to solo the beholders. I don't mind the builds that can wipe the floor with mine, just as long as there is RP to support it.

What I would suggest is that players really think about the RP aspect of the build. Should your paladin have rogue levels? Or is it only to get that really nice tumble dump?

That said, I like that the DM team is looking to see if the RP matches the abilities listed on the build. Should that barbarian with 8 INT really be chatting it up with merchants or able to use spell scrolls just because they have dumped points into UMD?

Which brings me back around to getting knocked out rather than getting dead. Sure it'd be nice to kill that evil necromancer and be done with them.... however, no one wants a utopian Amia. Or at least I /hope/ no one wants a utopian Amia. A cool down time frame maybe? Your evil or goodly character gets taken out and there's a week or two where the PC RPs in and near their home? I know jailed or captured PC's that didn't mind staying longer than the 48 hrs if there was RP to be had. One of my characters spent a nice chunk of time chained to a Temple floor. Good times!

As for the PVP rules... this is a game. Sure it's frustrating when you think the other guy should have more serious consequences than what they got. But, hey, there's always tomorrow. My paladin walked by that skeleton because it was standing near two mages of unknown power and he was going to get help. My drow walks about with his burly arms visible and helm off for a RP reason and don't worry he gets stopped and threatened with death often. My dwarf ignores those kobolds in Cordor cause it's not his city. If he's tired of seeing vermin he goes to Barak Rundar.

I would like to think that people don't avoid PVP because they want the other PC perma'd and know it won't happen... but because RP is more satisfying and meaningful.

_________________


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

I don't know. I just feel like the current situation and RP on amia is more like window shopping than an actual world. You just keep browsing until you find the person you always wanted to RP with anyways. Kind of backed by your last paragraph too.

Didn't use to be this way. Who knows, maybe people like it. Meh.

_________________
a.k.a. Audrey Zinata

I never meant that canon is bad, sorry if it was conveyed that way. My post was meant to be in reference to the general idea of people nitpicking on why someone can or cannot be healed, and in line with Yoss' sentiment that letting the player decide seems to offer them something. My crusade is against sticklers; even the definition of "canon" and what it comprises is very blurry to people, including me, and it pains me that my awesome stories are being stunted by the tyrants Canon and Lore, whatever it is they mean.

_________________
Every time you clock in the morning, I feel you just want to kill
All my innocence while ignoring my purpose to persevere as a better person
I know you heard this and probably in fear
-Kendrick Lamar, good kid

Vitaltouch, just for clarification purposes, what is your definition of a powerbuild? I realize you believe shifters are, but what other builds are in your views too much "munchkiness"? What builds are not? What would you do to reduce the power in powerbuilds?

Would it be evil if I permakilled the random avatars on the forum?

_________________

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Login: Narkudauman

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ╬ Join the Magisterium Mortis ╬

Finding a definition for powerbuilding is going to be the struggle, here. Only if you can clearly identify an issue should measures be taken to stamp it out. Otherwise there will just be unnecessary limitations enforced on folks.

First of all... if Vital is going going to write in Orange- I will keep writing like this.


Secondly, 'Policing Builds' is an insipid idea.


The problem exists in behavior of the players. Sure some people can build supper power-builds if they wanted and miss out on some cool role-play stuff. However some people who build these supper awesome power builds ~DON'T~ create conflict in a away that can lead to unwanted and un-warented PVP. This can very ~EASILY~ be done.

However it seems that when people create unwanted and un-warented PVP players get furious and it turns in to griefing.


Example. Sure using colored text is amazing can can high light things easily when reading but policing who can use what colors when and why is kinda not cool~ It just sticks red tape on everything and boggers down fun and ❤ creativity ❤.

Communication can play a HUGE role in this. If some one lets me know something OOC just for a small second or asks me something it can save me a TON of grief and instead progress towards something fun and interesting. But it seems that if no one ever takes the moment to do that. It should be made CLEAR what sort of out is being offered and when some one takes the out- let them. Too many times have I seen some one trying to take and out and being attacked when trying to do so. By communicating you may be-able to find some one who wants to role-play in the style you are looking for. By forcing people in to unwanted PVP it only builds sour relations and feelings. I believe there was a topic that discussed why behavior and communication is key in several posts from many players.

_________________

That's exactly the point I was going to make Hackums. Most if not all blatantly overpowered abilities have been pulled back or reduced in power here. To me, the balance is just right.

You can make a beast of a character, being able to lay waste to several pc's at one time. Or, you can hire muscle and magic to do the same for you. It all depends on how you want to play evil. The blatant in your face evil will always provide a focal point for all the good guys to squash. The slow methodical take over of a small town, then a large town, then a large city.....ect, is a lot harder to squash. Good guys dont want collateral damage. They respect laws. Heck, stuff balot boxes, corrupt the vote counters, all stuff that a level one fighter can accomplish.

Evil can work here. But you have to go into it with the mindset that evil will 9 times out of 10 loose in the long run. Everyone wants a happy ending. Granted that ending is different depending on which side you might be on.

See, I didn't even read your post, PassionateShadow. The first line just proves the finer issues lately. Completely useless thing to do... " if so and so does X, then I will ______."


What are we coming to, people?

_________________
I Am:
Derrin: 'Nothing to see here'
Beck: Hard working dwarf paladin.
Naela 'Widow': Wandering priestess.
Celinor Triellian: Paladin of Corellon.

I understand, and the apology is wholly accepted. Especially in topics like this, emotions can run high, and honestly, that's partly what I aim for when I make posts like that one. To the best of my knowledge, we've never seen major social debates (which tend to lead to major social changes) from topics like what one's favorite flavor of ice cream is (chocolate chip cookie dough, incidentally). Confronting the controversy is a step towards establishing parameters and gathering varied opinions, and thus finding solutions that everyone is more comfortable with. Hopefully I help more than hinder in that regard. ^_^



I want to note that any system -- even an attempt at a trial run of a new system -- should consider the individual values of the players. Not everyone wants consequence-free combat, and not everyone wants absolute-consequence combat. Rather, I would wager that most of us idealize something in the middle. Not necessarily an absolute middle, mind you, but despite how it seems, rarely does humanity truly envision perfection as an extreme. My initial point, despite being buried under elaboration, was essentially that, as players, we should have the right to choose our reactions to events, to some degree.

As an example, I am a child of two minds in this issue. On the one hand, if my paladin engages in a climactic duel with a blackguard on a storm-battered mountaintop under a blood red full moon while the spirits of the dead swirl around them like whirlwinds of agonized snow, YES I should think that whatever end result there is a bit more drastic than 'wait five minutes and get back up'. Conversely, if my same paladin explores a cave complex and, due to a lucky roll, is struck down by a random goblin, I would be more adverse to roleplaying their 'dramatic' death and the same breadth of consequence as in the previous example.

In truth, I think that may be the sticking point for some of those opposed to a change in death dynamics. Applying the same punishment to every instance can only end badly; it should be a case-by-case basis, depending on the RP involved. This way, if we get ganked by griefers, we don't have to spend an hour monologuing about our life choices in fugue because of absolute death punishment. We don't have to roleplay literally dying to the same trolls over and over again if it isn't necessary to the development of our character. But if a conflict comes along that adds something to our experience if there are tangible consequences? Absolutely. Die for a month, die for a day, die forever, so long as the RP fits.

Giving so much power over consequence to those involved (particularly anyone on the losing side) is a wildly imperfect solution, of course. But it's better than pigeonholing everyone into doing the same thing every time their hit point bar happens to read '0', in my opinion.

And now I will ask a question, to everyone involved in this conversation. In your view, what is an ideal consequence for 'hard' death, if it is warranted? For CvE, we already have gold and XP loss, but doing the same in CvC would require DM oversight. Stop playing the character for the day? Enable a mini-quest for your allies to raise you by gathering a rare component (if my characters had a core group of friends, incidentally, I would love the ability to make player-on-player side quests)? Lose a level? Give your killer a piece of gear?

While you're answering this question, try and think of a situation where a 'harder' consequence would apply. If you pick "Stop playing the character for the day", should it happen on every death, or only on CvC death? What about only pertinent CvC deaths? How do you define that?


@VitalTouch & Mr Hackums -

The argument of powerbuilds and their relations to the social dynamic of Amia is one that has been discussed repeatedly by more experienced minds than I (incidentally, where is Cory? I'd have though he would be adding his bits to this particular conversation by now), so I'll just put in my point and begone. If powerbuilding is such an issue and a non-issue, why do people do it? I can honestly say that I optimize, but I don't powerbuild (now that I think on it, BOTH of those two things might be worth defining), and it's to enable ease of use outside of player interactions and ensure that I can actually make a difference within them. I think that if we know/can extrapolate a 'why', it will be easier to define a 'how'.

_________________
Contents subject to change without warning, reason, necessity, or logical imperative.

Apparently you missed the satire.

_________________

I interpreted it as light-hearted, Analog. And the rest of the post was pretty!

There are plenty of us who may not agree with VitalTouch. I said so and explained why, and I think it is just a fundamental difference in what we want. Fortunately, I would never want to be at odds with VT and I think anyone who disagrees with VT feels the same. What it looks more like is happening here are the players hashing out different opinions and I think doing so without creating negative feelings. Yes, there may be times when we are really terrible to each other, but to continue to see it when we are in fact just expressing our differences in opinion while also trying to lighten the mood (which is how I took Passionate Shadow's first line) doesn't help the conversation.

If VT takes offense to Passionate Shadow's opening line I will eat Darby's hat. The "insipid" part would irk me, but whatever, at least there is respect otherwise!

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

I was being playful and using a silly over exaggerated example.



No harm intended / meant~ ( But the rainbow text was pretty)

_________________

Quick 2 cents here. I keep hearing about all this PvP going on. I've played here over 4 years, as MANY different personas. I've had actual, real, random PvP... once. I thought it was dumb, very little rp, but, enough to justify it, I guess. I won. The player that STARTED the PvP cried foul, kept sending me tells, etc. I was upset. Thought the whole thing was stupid and never needed to happen. It was a case of, "Oooh, you're an elf and wearing light colors, I'm a NECROMANCER, I'm supposed to fight you since this whole mountain of BROGENDENSTEIN isn't big enough for two of us. If you don't leave, I'm killing you.". Yeah, that's about how it went. I still remember it, and who it was.

I've walked away from maybe 2 other incidents.

I've had ACTUAL RP'd and completely appropriate IN CHARACTER PvP maybe 4 or 5 times, as a guard in Bendir Dale. Ok, one one of those wasn't appropriate either, but, was justified I guess.

My point is this.... that adds up to a whopping 8 incidents in 4 years. 2 didn't even happen. 4 were appropriate and enjoyable enough. That leaves... 2.... 2 incidents where I walked away saying, "Hrm... that was dumb, never needed to happen. So not fun.". TWO TIMES IN FOUR YEARS! Yeah, PvP is only a big deal if you make it a big deal. So many people are so willing to draw steel all the time. Try working it out with rp. So much more interesting.

I'm not a complete pacifist here, just saying that if we really put ourselves into our characters, I, for one am not so willing to simply attack and kill EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT SNEEZES IN MY GENERAL DIRECTION. This is a game, it's for fun. If PvP for no good reason isn't fun for you, then... don't do it. If you really enjoy just going around picking fights for no reason... well, there's other places you can play IMHO. Roleplay first. Roleplay MAY lead to PvP, but, that doesn't have to be the final result of every single argument or character slight. Sure, death has no consequences and it's so easy to just get up and go at it again mechanically, I know. Though, your character shouldn't. I try to keep this in the back of my mind. "What if the Gods don't bring me back this time?" It's just that little bit of reality for your character to be a little cautious. It's stopped some situations from exploding for me.

That's all I got.

I've been away from Amia for a good long break and having read a lot of the threads in the last few days trying to catch up it seems to me very simple, you need more love between players before you need more conflict between characters.

If you can't have good clean RP based merciless death to the unbeliever type tooth and nail pvp that's backed up with respect for others OOCly then don't have pvp IMO.

Good to be back btw.

_________________
Æ special character = ALT+0198

Party chat filtered, RP or it didn’t happen

_________________
I Am:
Derrin: 'Nothing to see here'
Beck: Hard working dwarf paladin.
Naela 'Widow': Wandering priestess.
Celinor Triellian: Paladin of Corellon.

I want to start off by saying I have an uncanny appreciation and respect for Yoss. Had I been androgynous and more of a musically gifted American, rather than a Swedish asshat, I totally would have offered him my wet winker (NSFW).


There are plenty of new players on Amia, and I haven't been part of this server for many years.

I played on Amia for 5 years, and was most known for consistently playing Darthion Illys (former leader of the Church of Bane) during that period. I quit playing on Amia in April 2010 and decided to permakill Darthion Illys at the same time. I did it for personal reasons, as I considered Amia as one of the core contributors to my real life procrastination, but also because I had become worn out by the setting, some of the players (and DMs) within as well as the amount of sheer time and effort it took to maintain and keep an evil faction prosperous, with the rewards being more accurately described as torment.

During those years, as I look back, I was much more immature, yet I still believe that those valid points brought forward back then still hold credibility now, even though I have exceedingly little knowledge of where Amia stands today.

The core difficulties in regards to the topic of evil, good, balance, fun, role playing, immersion and authenticity, will remain the same throughout time.


And here are past discussions which sort of came into mind as I came upon this one. Might be interesting for those who are inclined (with a few "I told you so" in them as well).

Evil vs Good. - viewtopic.php?f=2&t=36528
Mortality and You. - viewtopic.php?f=2&t=42912
Evil changes, Good stagnation, and Balance - viewtopic.php?f=2&t=47346



I'm happy to oblige.


But before that, a few responses to slight inaccuracies:



We did stick around. For 5 years. That's a long time building RP credibility, while still at large being ignored by those in charge (key players for RP-development, game mechanics, world progression, DM involvement etc.)



Building the castle had nothing to do with the Banites falling apart. The entire faction was carried by its devouted players, with little to no DM aid during its course.



This kind of reminds me of playing Darthion, and having the same neutral or good characters rise... again and again, choking on the same old RP-tagline, being beaten down once again. And repeat. Into eternity.

It wasn't uncommon for us Banites at the time, to actually have to report people for griefing, as they would simply not stop coming back, no matter how the RP turned out or how many times we killed them after they attacked us.

I think that Darthion's kill/death-rate against Paladins is something like 100+ vs 1. And we had nowhere near 100 unique Paladins on the server...

In the end, we Banites would most often plain out avoid a big chunk of the playerbase, since we had had to strike them down so many times (again, after they initiated conflict), with no change or effect coming out of it.



We didn't start using the guerilla tactics until after our second temple (read: not the castle) was completely sacked. Aka, an underground temple, so secret that only 3 people inside the faction actually knew where the permanently locked door lead to. Didn't stop 40+ level 30's from knocking on it eventually. Which lead to the Banites having nowhere to go, with a vengeance. And so begun one of many days of terror where we would retaliate by killing more or less everyone involved in the attack (which was pretty much the entire server )

People were plenty scared of the Banites before and after that as well. Just... not IC, most of the time. (The typical, IC: "I spit on you, you pathetic Banites. You're worthless, and I'll gut you like the piece if scum you are." - OOC: "Dude, I'm about to crap my pants. OK to PvP?")



I'm not aware of a second fortress being built...

The first one received no "unfair boosts" of any kind. We had to work our asses off for it, and as I can remember it was gunned down by DM-controlled imaginary ships somewhere on the coast when the Banite players were offline.



I can't account for Banite players that were present after I left, but during my years on the server we had zero tolerance for any player who conducted themselves in this manner. On the contrary, what you describe is something we most often feel victim to, on behalf of our opposition.


On to my 50 cents.

But before that, some tidbits:


The 25 April 2010, 19:01 PM, I posted:




I spent 2 years building, role playing and developing the Banite Faction in discretion. Darthion started off as a rising Cordor Guard, and had no known affiliation to any evil faction or group. Gurth, who later came to undertake the leading role of the faction (as Darthion was no cleric at the time), would continue to pursue that path. Acting from the shadows, plotting and scheming. Slowly trying to establish itself with the knowledge that should anyone find out... even as much as a hint, it would all fall apart immediately, and everything would have been for naught.

That was the case of Amia. The server where any form of evil role play (unless you played drow), had to be kept hidden from the general knowledge. Otherwise you would get immediately and ruthlessly smashed.

People eventually found out that Darthion was a Banite, and within that day, I had been more or less randomly PvP'ed more than a dozen times. During the following days, I believe I was both killed and hunted down on more than 30 occassions just because Darthion was supposedly a Banite. I had never had an IC encounter (or even OOC) with the majority of those characters who were suddenly trying to kill me.

At the time, I had no idea how to build a character (like... wasn't skill points meant to represent your character from an RP-standpoint? Tumble? What's tumble? Is AC the thing that you hit people with?)... but that would soon change. Forced, upon me.

That's one of the first realities you face when you play an evil character, who's either open about it from the start, or gets exposed.

You get targeted. A lot. Constantly. All the time. By everyone.


It soon dawned upon me, that if I were to become successful at playing a legendary evil character on Amia, one key factor would be to be tough. Not tough, as in killing a lot of people... but just staying alive.

That, is what brought fear into people. Being perceived as invincible. And it became evident very soon. For each time the goodies or chaotic neutral (or lawful neutrals, or neutral evils) tried to stomp on me, as they had done before, yet failed, I grew in their eyes. My character, grew in their OOC eyes.

Being able to successfully play an evil character has, unfortunately, more to do with how the players feel about the character OOC, rather than IC. If you could get the player, through your role playing, to feel scared, nervous, anxious or intimidated sitting behind the screen, it would almost always (looking at you, IC zealous paladins) leave its mark on the role play.

I tutored those in the Banite faction on this.

"It's not about how many you kill in PvP. It's about how many times you avoid getting killed."

Some Banites made successful powerbuilds... in order to avoid PvP. Not initiate it.


Some evil players try to get to the OOC player behind their IC opposition by means of graphical torture and what not. Each to his own, but that's never been my cup of tea. A game should be enjoyable, and I consider having to sit through a gruesome monologue of something that resembles the Texas Chainsaw Massacre would not only ruin the experience of your fellow player, but make them not want to play with you.

Evil RP is victorious when both parties get a thrill, a rewarding and indulging adventure and were both, when it's all said and done, would gladly do it all over again at another time.

This was one of the fundamentals in making the Banite faction into what it became.

Make the game enjoyable. "We play the bad guys. We accept the inevitable torment, in hopes to fill a role that makes this game so much more immense and fun... for everyone"

It's a horrible task to undertake, and due to how Amia often was in the past, for most players with evil characters, it became too much of a burden for them to bare. I think Yossarin actually summed it up quite adequately earlier in this thread.

A lot of players on Amia want to play evil characters. A lot of players give it a try, just to quickly give it up and never ever look back. It's just so much easier, more fun, more rewarding and less stress on your real life soul to play anything but the evil spectrum.

That's an issue. Because conflict makes fantasy great. With everyone sipping tea cups in the same corner, most people will eventually get bored. And those few who try to deliver the breakthrough excitement, eventually get worn out... and give up. Feeling unappreciated, unwanted and hopeless.

I've been there on numerous occassions. The whole Banite faction, has been there on numerous occassions. Tormak, Yoss and several others can testify to the grief I've experienced, and how they've actually helped motivate me to keep going, despite the OOC grief... the namecalling, the bad feelings, the harassments and having to constantly justify yourself... although you've done nothing wrong.

Kind of like the Patriots in football


It took much longer than what should have been deemed necessary to get the ball moving for the Banites. We had 30+ active (aka, players who logged on at least 3-4 times a week) players, who all contributed under an extended period of time. Yet we often found ourselves on the very short end of the stick. Ignored.

Some took that personally. No DM would involve their PC in the faction (or pretty much any other evil faction), which was usually, in those days, a necessity to get any attention from the higher levels and through that, become involved with the server as a whole.

Eventually... Gurth, gave up. I took the role of the leader of the Church of Bane again, and having had a few years experience trying to play evil by what was considered the only way of doing it on Amia, I decided to switch it up.

If we're not going to be included... if we are to be ignored... we'll have to force our way into the RP. Force our way into the spotligt. Force ourselves to hopefully be accepted, and be apart.

It was a mountainous task. Most people today, only seem to recall Banite PvP, Darthions reign of terror or the various demolishments of the Banite bases of operations... yet there were tons of RP made. After having, myself, continously played Amia for more or less 10-12 hours straight, every single day... role playing my character, creating connections, making friends (OOC), forcing myself into IC developments etc, we finnally found ourself some 6-12 months later with a stable foundation on which we were not only involved, but RP, adventure and plotlines almost exploded into any and all directions. We were contributing, and we were creating a sphere of our own in which people (Banite or not) could role play, and have fun.


It all comes down to a few basic key factors, to achieve this:

# A dedicated, committed, confident and social faction leader
# An indefinite agenda
# A core of players who are willing to stick around and contribute
# A clearly defined culture with set rules of conduct

However... once you do have a faction like this (evil or not) going, you need to following to sustain it:

# A setting which permits it
# External contribution (DM plots, attention, recognition)
# Willingness to adapt or change

All three of those, is something which Amia lacked in the past.


In a fantasy setting, the good guys win.

Hell, D&D is almost in its entirety based upon players playing good characters, heroes, who save the day against malicious foes. But they tend to do it in a setting where they go against the odds. Through strife, hardship and diversity they overcome, and find themselves victorious.

Usually that's where the story ends though.

The Lord of the Rings ends when Frodo finally melts the ring. Star Wars ends (or doesn't, as it now appears) when the Emperor is killed.

The story... the adventure... the role play, ends... when the good guys win in the evil setting which they were fighting against.


Now... Amia is a bit different. Because Amia was supposedly built around the good guys always winning in the end, but doing so in a setting where there was no naturally incorporated oppression or evil regime to overthrow. The players, were expected to create this part on their own. Yet they were expected to do so, in a physically limited world where they had no true means available to them (Tarkuul or Zanshiban doesn't count).

It kind of boils down to... you either have to have a setting where evil thrives, and good is pushed, encouraged and assisted along the way to battle it. Or vice versa.

Evil factions find it so hard to establish themselves since there's so few means of doing it. They have to start off in a random corner of the Forest of Despair, in a room in the sanctuary of sin (was that the name for it?), a deserted shadowscape, or on the isolated island of Tarkuul... which also happens to be almost exclusive to the boneworshipping clique.

Is it even worth the time to mention the number of neutral/good places where the heroes can amass?


I know that not everyone wants to partake in conflict RP. Some prefer playing house in an NWN persistent world. Each to his own. In the past, some would even argue that the majority of the server didn't want it. Which may also be true.

Because that was what the server catered to. The carebears (no offense, really). A lot of other players had their run, but gave up and moved on, as Amia was perceived as far too difficult to achieve anything else. The setting just wouldn't allow it. The DMs, and the agenda which they diplomatically agree on for the server, wouldn't allow it.

There is (was?) one exception. Being the drow. A server within the server. A world of its own. In time, separated almost entirely from the rest.


Today, I have no grievance towards what happened almost 5 years ago. Back then, I had a personal and emotional investment. I was frustrated.

But as I think about it now, I truly believe it all boils down to Amia.... taking itself too seriously. Being too conservative. Trying to cater to everyone, while ending up in reality only pleasing a selected (and even unintended) few. Amia, being proud.


I've DM'ed on several servers during my NWN career (is that even a thing?). I've never seen a playerbase and DM staff so mutually strained and stressed, while still being so obsessive.

In my experience, it's usually easier to indulge in what you've got going for you, rather than trying to hold fast.


How long will the forces of evil keep on knocking on the door of Amia, without being let in, while the ideals and systems of old stand on the other side, trying to hold it shut with pain and strain.... rather than just, opening it, and then just go with the flow?



I believe the key to having a prosperous RP climate, where both evil and good thrive... is to start by allowing and enabling evil to exist.




Sorry for the long post, here's a potato:

_________________
Darthion Illys

Join the Banites!

Conflict can be made easily and can be done to where both parties feel a rush and nothing-really all that bad comes of it OOCly. I did it with a cat.
Evil isn't needed for conflict.
PvP isn't needed for conflict.
Only disagreements~
Let's take a look at the definition of conflict.
Conflict: To come into collision or disagreement; be contradictory, at variance, or in opposition; clash.

When I first joined I found it hard to settle in any where or get any recognition of roleplay until.. well; I created conflict. How did I do this?

I ran up to a door that was guarded by two or three level thirties ( I did this at lvl two) and tied to pick the lock during some one's meeting taking place right in-front of them- did I get killed? No.
Did I expect it? Yes.

Is conflict hard to create? No?
Is it hard to sustain? Some times.
Conflict leads to resolution, it's as simple as that boys and girls. The real question is where do you go from there? Do you persist? Do you change strategies? In my experience playing good neutral evil or anything really I find it best to try and create situations that are compelling for characters and players to want to partake in. Or at least that's what I try to. Conflict can be a good told for story building in general but you have to know how to use it. And honestly Conflict with out reason or plot does not a good story make, Nor a good game does it make.

Any group or faction will need to do as described above in the lists and it requires a lot of work. I started a faction up in a matter of a few months. Just because other factions weren't paying attention to us until we started to develop and started to make things move didn't mean we were irrelevant. Yes starting takes a tremendous amount of effort and you do need to be doing something interesting... that's what really counts. Make something others will find interesting as well as you and you will get attention.

I feel that a lot of players don't like what I like to call 'bad ends' and that's understandable and no one really wants their character to be messed with in away where the player can do nothing to stop it. For a writer this can be a very harsh thing to deal with when just thrown in to the mix and it can become rather upsetting.

I think I've become rather well known for being that person to go to when you wants a scape goat for something- A sacrifice, a slave, or playing a good prisoner even if perhaps the character hadn't really done anything wrong. Nothing has to end when the baddie is caught. It all really depends on the writers collaborative creativity and seeing where each action reaction stems forth from and what it flourishes in to.

Yes it may feel like there are cliques that perhaps you have trouble getting along with but really if there's 40 people on line and you are able to find some you can certainly initiate roleplay, plot and even conflict. Evil is harder to play in general and if you want to play a baddie you have to realize the risks you have to take and what can happen. When I get on my evil characters I expect to be pud-stomped. Hell even when I play my lawful good pally some times I expect to get the character seriously abused one way or another depending on what risks the character will take. If it leads to character building and develop-meant I'm interested. If it seems pointless and aggravating well.. chances are I'm going to avoid playing with you. Another thing is not all players like conflict and don't want to be dragged in to needless cock and bull. That's just a few things that all goes in to this.

I find a good method of doing with conflict is to let it build slowly and test the waters to see how the other character or player reacts to such and then adjust what I'm doing to make things interesting. If you make things interesting then the other player will want to play with you.

_________________

+1

I actually read through this whole post. I wasn't there when Banites were a thing. Maybe at the end of their existence, which made me never encounter them.

But what I seem to noticed as well is that good people kill the evil people, evil people kill the good people and they just keep on coming back. On both sides. Death became mostly just personal offence. Something like slapping you with a glove was in the past.

And then there is another issue - some people get perma, while others don't. So you can go and put a bounty on heads of officials in Kohlingen, they will get raised, then when they catch you, you're getting perma'd. Why? Because you played with Kohlineg, the >>big<< faction, right. Same things goes for Tarkuul. You messed with them, you deserved perma.
Then some of your friends are trying to retaliate and nothing can be done, because rules (refusing PnP spells and so on).

I can see people burning out/leaving because of this kind of situations/conflict handling.
There definitely is something wrong in here, some rules are being slightly bend in the favor of selected (as Mr Mago said even unintended) few.

_________________

Cyn & Velden story ~ life after death
'Now life has killed the dream I dreamed.'

I definitely appreciated that post, Mago. You raise a lot of good points, some of which are still applicable and some which may not be. I do think that evil factions get more DM time and attention, these days, but I'm not sure if the whole IC/OOC interplay you raise is very different. People still only seem to fear those people that they see as invincible, whether it be from powerbuilding or their RP capital. It's an interesting concept I think Yossarin brought to light the first time with his HARDCORE MODE. (Which he has now confessed about.. the pansy.) I can't believe you only have a man-crush on Yossarin, though. I'm jealous. He gets all the good ones. (Sorry, that last comment was not conflict-oriented. Or was it?)

Read Mago's text as well.. And found myself agreeing to several points risen. I would say that it is not even excluded for evil players. I myself had an experience with my main character when she became politically very active and started speaking against one of the largest factions. She became the opposition, in a sense, and was started being targeted by rumors, gossips and whatnot spread of her, couple of times even confronted by PvP actions by people I had near any rp experience with. At one point I was told in tells that my character was "too heavy to rp with". Needless to say, all this negative made me feel like I could not provide roleplay to anyone. I tried to find out matters behind these IC actions and was not really given DM support nor player support OOC:ly to find out. Those who did negative actions towards my character left no means for me to solve the matter. As said by Mr. Mago... It became very tiring to keep up with IC and OOC information and confrontation.

Instead of diplomacy those in numbers result in offensive actions, either confrontation of word or direct PvP. As she became opposition, there started to come more and more people who I had never even met, but already had dislike for my character and the amount of conflict kept just increasing. At times I did wonder, new character I had never seen about before... And they already knew my character in and out and had an opinion set in stone, regardless of my IC actions.

And when your character is started to being ignored, it does not provide roleplaying. Instead you find yourself standing about alone most of the time, while others ignore your character due to IC. Yes, I can understand it, however, I don't understand why people do not try to take the effort to roleplay and change perspective of a character instead of reinforcing it.

EDIT:

And in Amia, it does feel that if you interact with an known evil character otherwise than conflict. Your character is soon painted as evil as well.. I would love to interact with the evil characters, other than conflict orientation.. But at the same time.. I know that if I start doing that, soon.. my own character is being painted as evil. Which is stupid in my opinion, considering the amount of players we have.. We should have room to be inclusive in our roleplay.

_________________
http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/spells.htm

I have little more to say than this has been an enlightening post. It seems that this server has spent 10 years with the same problems, my tenure only began shortly after Darthion's passing, or at the tail end of it, so I wouldn't have the best grounding to know.

I highlighted a few points here because of the value I feel they have in being chewed on, and recognized. Personally I started with the factional information because that rings home to me, and I can only hope to encourage a faction to touch the precipice of progression as factions past, and you've given me a few pointers that I will hold true thus forth!

Now onto the Good and Evil discussion: I believe you've stated a very strong argument as to why we've consistently had issues with this for as long as Amia has existed, and through your personal experience (And my own observations of evil!) it is entirely true that more oft than not the setting has enabled good and stifled evil on a massive scale, from wanton PvP (which is honestly more often initiated by good, and then called "Baiting") to merciless OOC persecution and unrest.

This will never change until we shift the methodology of enabling factions and players on this server. This is where you highlighted the next point, which I loved.




We /need/ DM support for our conflict, and this isn't just evil, though evil gets the shortest stick of all. Like Darthion has pointed out, Amia is a server where good always wins, and good also always has a DM or the entire team pushing them along unerringly towards success. It's no wonder all evil gets obliterated and burnt out when the system is rigged against them. In fact it's a miracle that people still try!

I think it's time for some action which I've championed for a long time:

DMs should start championing player factions in the same capacity they do cities.
If a faction has a single DM they can always go to to bounce off ideas, and have active assistance in progress of the faction we would have more mobility, inter-factional content, and this sort of polarized attention would innately bring players together as it would be easiest to catch the DM eye from within another faction.

But I don't want to dilute the message, so I leave it with Mr Mago's beautiful rendition.

_________________
bad man

I don't now who you've been talking to but I play with evil characters all the time and don't get mixed in. I suppose it's how you present the character you are laying with. IC people tell me that my pally should kill Gerald Edmund for Xyz reason and My pally hasn't ever seen Gerald act or behave poorly along with some other moral codes that's more personal to the character this will not happen just because rumors. If a character doesn't do the research to find out about your character or doesn't seem interested there are other ways of interaction.





I do agree to one notion that i have come to notice. It seems to me what the real issue is here isn't conflict at all/ conflict can be had with out problem just the methods haven't been all that successful and I feel a lot of folks seem to be annoyed that they aren't getting enough attention hand have gone about getting it the easiest way which leads to negative attention. I o think that if there was a dm who could watch over anew 'evil' faction or any new faction it would help solve a lot of the player issues thus far.




Also: There are tons of rumors Ic about my rogue. People don't want to talk to the character and think it's easiest to just ask some some else who probably asked some one else. Every one has a different view and way of saying things and people tend to skew stories in their own favor. The manner I dealt with rumors was I sought out any one who intentionally started a malicious rumor for the effect and I would destroy that character. This is not how I feel ooc- this is how the character thinks, plans, and behaves. Now I don't mean physically destroy I mean tarnish their reputation and drag their name through the mud. You have to be careful with what do you and how you say it because when all i s said and done actions speak louder then words and only your character can really define them selves to others. If you intend on starting rumors on some one realize it can all come back to you. If something bad can happen it will.

_________________

I had a couple beers and I only read the first page, but I figure Fuck it. I'm an evil bastard, so I will share my thoughts on the topic of being evil.

1) You don't need to be level 30 to evil.

Yes. You heard me. I never maxxed out a single character. I find hunting to be a boring, tiresome impediment to me getting to have fun. So I skip it. You don't need to be level 30. Heck, you don't even need to be level 3. You just need a good RL int score. You make friends with some people, you piss off some others, and then you create conflict. It isn't hard, and you don't even have to be particularly manipulative to do it generally. You just have to make alliances, foster a mentality that suits you, and be utterly pragmatic in your choices. Screw people over because a big dude with a sword is out for the groups skin and it looks like he's going to win. Switch sides, be unreliable, and make sure you always come out on top.

Malice survived the downfall of two houses and only died because she decided to negotiate instead of level Underport with an army of drow adventurers at her back and a spell book full of Columns of Holy Fire...

2) Like so... I don't have to be a complete arsehole all the time?

CORRECT: Evil survives by two means. Complete domination of it's immediate surrounds (viz the underdark) and by masking it's true nature. This is partly why I seriously beef with paladins... DM, when are we getting lead sheets? . But yeah. Sneak, lie, cheat. Take bribes. Take bribes and then screw the person bribing you. Inveigle your way into the good graces of powerful people. Spread falsehoods. Confuse people. Make friends and then murder anyone who gets in your way outside of your clique. Bonus points if your friends are 'good' people. Act hurt when you're brought to account for your misdemeanours. Claim you're the good guy. Be morally ambiguous enough that people can't conclusively say otherwise. Help people now in order to make it sting all the more later when you screw them/they realise you're an evil sod and they think you're their friend and their mushy heart gets all confused. You must always seek allies, and be visibly grey. Bonus points if you can convince people your halo is just a little tarnished.

3) You're the devil Numbers

Amia is what you make of it. All you need is time and patience.

I read up btw since posting, and did Mago's post. The Banites were fun. I think their mistake was ultimately that they were forced out into the open...

Now there are certain factions that I'm not even sure still exist, but I used to have chats with. The real secrecy junkies. They know who they are.

_________________

Jys'zyne Do'larn

Man, this account is over 10 years old. Where do I get my old man beard?

All of this continues to support my opinion about the 'combat culture' of D&D/NWN, in which 'violence solves everything'. You kill the bad guy and that's the end of the story (maybe he escapes and comes back later, as in the comic books, but there's typically a long interval between appearances).

The 'naturally incorporated oppression or evil regime to overthrow' is typically played by NPCs in caves, dungeons, strongholds, etc. scattered throughout the server (or the DM's game world). The problem with a persistent world that is not immediately responsive to the players' actions (as a PnP game might be) is that the monsters never really go away and, when anyone bothers to think about it at all, it requires major mental contortions to rationalize the fact that kobolds and fire giants continue to exist in huge numbers to be beaten on by characters. The same applies when dealing with PC conflict. Violence doesn't solve the problem but people keep trying it because that's how the story is 'supposed' to play out. So you end up with endless back-and-forth PvP fests that resolve nothing.

As long as combat remains the preferred, or ultimate, means of resolving (player) combat, the sorts of things that Mago describes will continue to happen. The PvP will ramp up, degenerate into ambushes, baiting and torture, until it boils down to the 'final' combat where one faction gets destroyed by the entire server in what is a foregone conclusion and they quit in disgust. Ultimately, there is no future for an unpopular (read: evil) faction on Amia as things currently stand.

There has to be a way to shift conflict resolution away from combat. I can think of several possibilities, but they all have potential down sides:

1. Forbid PvP, except possibly under very special circumstances (which will probably have to involve DM oversight). This verges on the ridiculous and probably requires the same sort of mental contortions as are involved in justifying repeated PvP/PvM, as well as potentially wasting a lot of DM time.

2. Make PvP highly unpleasant via some form of long-lasting temporary penalties and/or creeping permanent impairments. I have some hope for this mechanical method, though I fear it might tend to actually encourage powerbuilds and ambush-type PvP ('get them before they get you'). I'm also not sure how you'd handle things like class/level progression in this situation, e.g. if you drop below a critical minimum stat for a class, do you lose all class levels/abilities? This could also create a major market (favouring epics, as always) for magics that permanently boost ability scores (though this also creates opportunities for money sinks and quests with one-time-only rewards to stave off the inevitable decline). Despite some of these flaws, I still think this might be the best option as it works within the existing system and is more 'realistic'.

3. Include 'hard' faction bases on the server that can at best be damaged but not destroyed (e.g. the Underdark as whole). I see this leading to a 'raid' mentality (such as the Drow used to do) and eventually a near-complete separation between good and evil (such as now largely exists with the Drow). As such, this option is undesirable.

I can't think of anything else at the moment and I think I've belaboured this particular approach to the topic too much so I'll try to leave it at that.

_________________

~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)

In my experience, it's usually a lot easier, more fun and far more effective to encourage a preferred type of behaviour... rather than discouraging an unfavourable one.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." (it's not really the definition of insanity, but still a good quote)


Aka, punishing and limiting PvP goes down the same track as Amia has been going for years in the terms of restraining conflict based RP on the Evil vs Good spectrum. You won't fix evil factions on Amia by making everything more carebear.

Embrace the divinity.


And PvP or D&D mechanics by itself isn't the problem. The problem is that people don't want to lose. They don't necessarily care that much about winning, but they for sure can't stand the emotional strain which losing results in (self-doubt, disappointment, guilt, shame, inadequacy, failure, sadness, anger). Those are some powerful emotions... and nothing is more powerful in the human psyche than trying to avoid bad feelings (or pain, if you will).

Thus egos are formed and built. And that's why characters IG don't stand down as a violent conflict with a 7 foot beast of evil winker-trashing is about to brew. The players are struck with pride and incapable of accepting defeat. And yes... "giving up", "standing down" and "backing off" is equal to surrendering.

You'll get that even if you ban PvP altogether.

Players do not want to lose. They can't handle it. And it doesn't help that the majority of people playing NWN are immature (I was, as well).

It's been the reason for 95% of all the OOC drama on Amia.


Basically... what you want to achieve, is a positive role playing environment where it doesn't matter if you lose. That it's OK to lose. It's fun to lose. It's a natural part of the RP to lose.

You'll fix Good vs Evil and a ton of other things at the same time once you accomplish that.

_________________
Darthion Illys

Join the Banites!

Agree Mago. Too many bigheads on Amia. I remember once my harmless old man hin got murdered for having the nerve to insinuate someone was homosexual. The guy was level 3, sat on a bench all day and just bantered in Bendir. They coulda just gone 'yeah whatever old man' or ignored him, but naw, best slay the dude. He wasn't even evil. Just cranky and rude...

_________________

Jys'zyne Do'larn

Man, this account is over 10 years old. Where do I get my old man beard?

Mr. Mago has risen me to post something when I all but gave up trying.

Public letter to Mago,

As for the question if this problem persists today, the same as 5 years ago, the answer is a resounding YES, the problem has -not- changed. I've been in and out of Amia trying to make -something- work in conflict-based (mostly evil) factions. Hit all the walls you mentioned, until several players, including myself just stopped caring and went on to other games. -although many just come back to check things out here and there. I've been there through the Zhentarium under Frey, the cultists of Cariagh ('under') Viz'aun, the Dagger's Double, the Shevaresan Winyans (who took a liking to creating conflict with the Shrine), and the Thayans. Nothing changed in this regard from 5 years ago aside from one or two choice DM's rooting for us (their voices politically drowned out by the others who did not appreciate conflict rp.)

I was also in your Banite faction back then, five years ago. ^.- (and fought in vain to the infa-spawn of Black Caravan npcs sacking the no longer hidden temple)

Aside from lending credence to the fact this is still an issue. (made more evident by the fact these topics resurface constantly over the years about the same exact topic). I also wanted to point out a pattern I've noticed where by:

1. Someone decides to play a character in a conflict role.
2. They are ostracized for it OOCly and ICly, if they win pvp that inevitably is thrust upon them there are two mechanical outcomes. A. It's complained they keep coming back to life to create conflict and never actually 'die' and then it gets 'old', how dare those "griefers". B. They win and hardly ever die, and it's cried out that they must be nerfed for surely they shouldn't be able to defeat so many other people. How dare those "(powerbuilding) griefers".

In either case, the OOC hatred is mounted and this flurry of complaints is sent to the DM team en mass. (Meanwhile the entire server, is talking about them IC and OOC, generating lots of interesting rumor mill RP and plotting and planning to remove the threat 'once and for all'. Which is quite nice when everyone on the server is roleplaying, about you, and what to do with all this conflict you've just created for them.) Unfortunately this attitude is also taken OOCly in a negative way. DM's themselves, as human beings also fall prey to this, seeing these players as 'trouble makers', 'no good for the server', 'causing lots of complaints' and it is but a short period of time before they find a reason for these 'bad players' to be banned. Temporarily or permanently, for whatever reason sounds best at the time.

The bottom line is, evil is not supported on Amia. Amia is overwhelmingly 'good', and any challenge to the status quo of "good" is seen as an "attack" on the (now social, with no conflict) Amia they "love." Unfortunately Sinfar has a larger market share on the social Rp'ers and Amia doesn't compete in this manner (cyber and so forth). If Amia wants to be carebear social, I don't see it having a future given the server competition. Amia is, in my humble opinion, supposed to be a Roleplay server that competes with primarily Arelith (from which it spawned). Amia's appeal in years past was it was more 'lite' on the restrictions and leveling and so on than Arelith. A lighter, more fun, less restrictive, roleplay server. One where leveling wasn't excruciating, the requirements for lore were less strict (more plug and play, learn as you go), you didn't have to pause your adventure to eat 'food' or drink 'water' and so it was a bit more user friendly and relaxed. The downside is it seems to have forgotten the basics of (entertainment) game design that is present in all games, movies, plays, ectectect. All of these interesting venues always -always- have a form of conflict, a problem to solve. There is -always- something to do to overcome. From Tetris and figuring out how to stack blocks, to marching to Mordor to destroy the one ring. Why play a game, watch a movie, or see a play when there's nothing interesting going on and everything is just totally "Fine".

In example: "Introducing the new movie, What Happens in Happily Ever After."
Plot: "Nothing is wrong, everything is fine, everyone is happy in this movie and there is no drama, no problems, no conflict, and nothing that has to be done."

...anyone buying a movie ticket?

*crickets chirping in the peaceful background*

If Amia wants to persist, it needs to support entertaining conflict, not punish those who create it.

In this game I agree with Mago, either the environment itself is overwhelmingly evil and you allow the 'good-guys' to fight back against this overwhelming evil -claiming victory here and there but never truly winning everything (as a way to avoid the 'happily ever after' snore-ville). Or in the reverse you support Evil so heavily that they take cities right and left to establish at -least- an equilibrium. Once that is established you can resume your more impartial role as a Dungeon Master, a role whereby you encourage and support the existing roleplay that is now self-generated among the players as they plot and plan to 'do something to solve <x> problem'. If PvP has no consequence, then the next best thing is to make factions, cities, and the environment change as a result of the conflict.

_________________
When good wins the day, and evil is destroyed, then the movie is over ...and you do something else.

Let's make it, not over.