Page 2 of 3

Re: How should we treat eachother?

Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 8:01 pm
by mazarmormuk
i dont think these npcs are the real topic, but i like them. i like the towers, i like undeads, and i think every group should have such a tool to express its current power and spread over the world. its power is a thing that should be levelled out, yes.

AND, i think, more close to the topic, everyone beeing able to place such things should really think before it is used to harrass people, especially if it is against special groups or individuals,...
ARE two thurses at the bridge the right PLACE and the right POWER? (to be challenging and fun)
DOES it fit my character and roleplay?
i know that is asked much.
Would it be fun to place giant ghouls with twohanders in the gremlins hill?

if you know you are stronger anyways, why not use it the way it is challenging instead of annoying?

Re: How should we treat eachother?

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:06 am
by luminier
What do you suggest for each group?

Also I feel like some things are really annoying for people, the thurse "trap" included. Having been the cause for a lot of strife for people putting up towers, I know people can totally be annoying as hell with power.

But I think you're right Mazar. Is annoying the best use of power? Not in my opinion.

Re: How should we treat eachother?

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 5:40 am
by glorfindel
Hey, could we please not derail this thread to the old 'the trap discussion' ? I think there's something much more important to be talked about, is there not? (Read the first commenters as to what I mean).

If this is a topic again, start a new thread, please.

Re: How should we treat eachother?

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 6:12 am
by louis
ghalt wrote:I think this only works if the other party is willing to interact with you in good faith, or at least if there’s some common ground between the two parties. I've had fairly poor experiences. It’s… if someone went too far in a pvp fight, I can point to fair play rules. If someone goes too far in a roleplaying arc that’s doing vastly more damage to me or my character than a death tax? I’ve got nothing to point to.

I think the wizards board agrees with poGhalt and others here, we have no such "Guideline", and we indeed could need one for such situations.

But this would require your help - what should such a guideline say? Do you already have something in mind? Mind to forge your ideas into "rules/guidelines" to discuss them here?

Your friendly wizards

PS: And yes, don't derail this thread please. If you have problems with npc monsters, make your own npc monster thread. And if you have problems with watchtowers, make your own watchtowers thread. (and so on) :mrgreen:

Re: How should we treat eachother?

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 6:17 am
by ferranifer
It's not a problem with NPC monsters.

It's a problem with people being jerks to others while staying within the confines of their roleplay, which is exactly what this thread is about, isn't it? Not a problem specifically with thief prosecution, but still the same problem.

About putting guidelines into rules, I feel that it's going to be very difficult to do such a thing. For example, I remember some people getting upset because of Lucifer's character name, because it was offensive to them in a very real way. It's also difficult to exercise political/judicial power without stepping on some toes, and the ability to exercise that power is a necessary part of the game.

I'd say what we need here is people exercising common sense. If your actions could be so crippling or insurmountably punishing that they would drive someone away from the game, please think twice, for the good of the game. Specially when the other side cannot do anything about it.

Re: How should we treat eachother?

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 6:21 am
by louis
OK - Then please come up with a suggestion for a "rule/guideline/agreement suggestion/you name it" - try to keep it precise and short, and aligned to the intention of this thread.

Re: How should we treat eachother?

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:31 pm
by luminier
Rule/guideline/agreement number 1 - Don't be a dick. You're playing with people on the other end of those characters.



Side note, I agree with ferranifer. It was not a derailment of the conversation it was a progression of the thread conversation.

Re: How should we treat eachother?

Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2015 6:43 pm
by ghalt
Meh. I can think up some, how valuable they are is up for debate.

"You're not allowed to start a trial against an absent character."--this isn't really in the neighborhood of fair if done against a player gone for a year.

"If someone asks you OOCly to stop bothering them, stop bothering them. RP is not an excuse to continue, cut off contact until a member of staff can intervene."--That is like um, if someone's taking too much flack from another they need to be able to leave, and human nature convinces folk to stick it out when it's really best they not. Like if bonepriest player X decides that being harangued in a certain way by a crusader is too much for them as a player, and they need to go away now, you can either let them leave ic now or watch them log out and not come back later? And hopefully and I'm volunteering them for this one of the wizards can moderate the disagreement later so the game can continue? (Keeping in mind like, bone priest player X may have "just come home from a shift working at the homeless shelter" or whatever and was looking to unwind playing an evil necromancer fighting orcs and not a target for hot cauters on that day or whatever. ^^)

It would also be helpful to have like, "a process for submitting complaints"--I mean the very best of us over 5-10 years or whatever are probably going to do something complaint worthy to someone, and I feel like currently things get to irreparable levels before staff is involved, and failing to stay in character when things are too much to deal with is heavily discouraged?

ferranifer wrote:If your actions could be so crippling or insurmountably punishing that they would drive someone away from the game, please think twice, for the good of the game. Specially when the other side cannot do anything about it.

I'd think you could replace "think twice" here with "don't"? Of course the first half of the rule is up for debate--generally folk hopefully don't try to drive others from the game, but as a hard and fast rule if the target feels that way it's time to leave character and work things out in some compromise or just drop the storyline?

Re: How should we treat eachother?

Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:57 am
by morgaine
Been following the thread for a while now. The reason I gave up on this game with my darkelf and the reason I find it hard to make any further character of that sort, is very much aligned with what poRudolpho and poGhalt described, but I'll formulate it differently:

This setting and the people don't allow for any kind of 'shady' plot. Characters that do not have a spot on "I'm all good and nice to everybody" attitude / history are automatically fucked. You don't even get a chance to play any sort of redemption RP, you are just evil. Die already, will you?

And that's not only with my darkelf. Given, she had the worst time and she was in quite a dire situation, but that was what made her so interesting to me. She was someone not everyone could trust or even dare to hang around. But some people, in my opinion should've, especially as she clearly was trying to repent.

The kind of interaction that she usually had was like this:

Amward plains, meditating there after she had killed a goblin.
Next thing I know, she finds herself at a stake with two angry crusaders flanking her. She gets told she's a known thief and she has to pay for her crimes. I inquire how they think they know she's a thief. I get told the runic ring she's wearing gives it away, as well as the robe. I was seriously shocked. I didn't even know watchtowers existed before, nor did she really ever have contact with a crusader before. End of the song, thanks to a friendly players actions, she gets not killed but 'exiled' to the tundra, with the threat of eternal doom on her, should she ever come south again. => At this point, after doing some fun RP with the person who saved her ass, I shelved the char, because there was no point in playing her. I never made her into a fighting monster, she was not supposed to be a fighter, the niche she had fought in was long dead and gone.

Brought her back when the Asrals lifted their ban on darkelves in Arborea, as there was some chance for interaction again. First thing I know, I'm just south of the gorge, waiting for someone, I'm swarmed by six crusader / taniels who beat me to death without a single moment of RP. They could not have known me, I didn't know them either, so WHY?

I struggled a bit here and there after that, made some small progress here and there, really appreciated that the asrals weren't goodies anymore, but had their own stance. In the end, the amount of situations like the two above were commonplace for me, so much that I decided that char isn't worth it.

Had one or two newbies since, trying to go in a similar 'slightly evil' direction, but really, as long as 2/3 of the mud is some kind of cleric / crusader with a "heck, I have to kill all evil, now, forever, die already" attitude, I see no point in bringing chars with diverse roleplay. The only evil this mud will ever have is super strong sathos, because that's the only thing that can survive. Everything else, including thieves, will always be fucked when they are discovered unless players seriously change their attitude regarding how they treat chars that 'messed up' in their belief system.

So I suggest the following rule:

- If it is possible in any way in your RP, try to turn a pointless encounter into an interesting one, and give people that are your enemies creative punishments. Give people the chance to recover from their failures, even if you OOCly know they will never be good.

End of Rant ;-)

Re: How should we treat eachother?

Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 3:48 pm
by Eluriel
morgaine wrote:This setting and the people don't allow for any kind of 'shady' plot. Characters that do not have a spot on "I'm all good and nice to everybody" attitude / history are automatically fucked. You don't even get a chance to play any sort of redemption RP, you are just evil. Die already, will you?

...

Had one or two newbies since, trying to go in a similar 'slightly evil' direction, but really, as long as 2/3 of the mud is some kind of cleric / crusader with a "heck, I have to kill all evil, now, forever, die already" attitude, I see no point in bringing chars with diverse roleplay. The only evil this mud will ever have is super strong sathos, because that's the only thing that can survive. Everything else, including thieves, will always be fucked when they are discovered unless players seriously change their attitude regarding how they treat chars that 'messed up' in their belief system.

I feel this same way, that Sathos are the only real evil in the mud because they're the only ones that can stand up to all the goodies. If you're not powerful, you have to be really subtle in your evilness, so subtle that it's probably not noticed by the majority of people. And if you do get outed as a thief or as a follower of a dark god, you are pretty much screwed unless you can convince people that you're trying to repent. So the options seem to be go Sathos and all-out evil, or just pretend you're good so that you're pretty much another one of the good guys because you can't do anything else.

Obviously, it would be nice to avoid situations like Morgaine described where a bunch of people come in and kill you without any roleplay. If you're established enemies, that is one thing. But at least try to figure out who this darkelf is and what they are doing here first? I think the rp interaction and tension between good and bad guys is a lot more interesting than just killing each other back and forth.

Re: How should we treat eachother?

Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:46 pm
by Aslak
It goes as far that you cannot be neutral without getting on the bad side of the goodies. You cannot even say I do not care for good or evil, means already you are a bad guy.
Sadly, as long as there are no other goals but to kill each other, as long as there are no other ways to hurt or slow down your enemy but to hunt and kill him, playing anything but a brutal evil will be impossible or very painful at least.

Re: How should we treat eachother?

Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 8:01 pm
by mazarmormuk
Cant say if what i write is true, please place a big "?" behind it all :

The majority of characters gather on the side of light around several fanatic characters. Both, i call them fanatic and follower, close one eye on codex and behaviour to accept the other, forming a great alliance and strength.
These fanatics surely do not accept a special level of beeing less than blinding white, which is totally correct icly. Means there is just a hard edge between beeing "in" and "out".
On the other hand there is only advantage for the "followers" if they're "in", nothing is really asked from them (even asral clerics are sometimes invited "in", if they just hunt sathonites).
Additionally, if f.e. darkelves are hunted without a question when the fanatics follow their codex and drag the followers with them, the game starts a forum discussion about too harsh treatment (also absolutely correct).

While the code tries to countersteer with straighter and harder rules turning fanatics into total dicks, the players search ways to still stay "in" and in teams or alliances, maybe reasoned by the low playerbase.

If you want forostar to be less extreme also in the ways of interacting (here i try to hit the tocpic again), you ld need to fill the area between blinding white and pitch black, also on the goodies side and soften that sharp edge. As long as everyone joins behind the strict Lord Marshall playing his divine law and his Archbishop, Council member or Judge playing the best rulerider, there will just exist "beeing part of the goodies" and "being offender of the goodies".

well, i m drunk, its late, i dont want to offend anyone and i think this step is currently developing :)

Re: How should we treat eachother?

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:19 am
by Aturshus
With as much blame as there seems to be in this thread, let's make something quite clear. The problem is not that bad characters are automatically disliked by good characters, it's that the game is so focused on two major cities that everything else loses meaning. Let me try to explain (although it's 3 AM and I'm starving!)

A thief gets kicked out of Elvandar, for instance, or their presence there is not welcome and that is (and should) be made very clear. Because it is Elvandar, not because they shouldn't have a place in the game. Now, you might think Arborea is an alternative but it's really not. Ironhold doesn't have players, it's a stomping ground for just about all the 'big players'.

What we need is a new city, a den of anarchy and fun where all our midway baddies can go and hang out and do their thing and what-have-you. Maybe they could have some form of law and even a leader (player?). Move the rogues there! Put the rogues in charge of the place! Whatever! Or maybe give them heavy influence (like the Skyrim thieves guild maybe?) It should be pretty well hidden and well guarded, but you could surely expect raids by various other cities? It would also be a good place to house an unaligned mercenary or fighter guild to give rogues some beefy allies.

Also, make the Arborean city guard a new guild and nerf the Asral clergy, why is Elvandar the only city with multiple guilds working together? Something for Asador would not go amiss either... >.>
But that all ties in with what I keep saying about needing to provide an option to start on the bad side and have places you can train an evil character. (Writing descriptions for such an area recently as well)

Basically right now good and 'well behaved neutral' are the only acceptable alignments because they're the only alignments with a place they can spend their time and people to socialize with.

I can tell you that the Taniels right now don't even hardline as much as they are meant to. It pretty much comes down to 'they repent openly or you LITERALLY BEAT IT OUT OF THEM', but mostly it comes down to rp and politics instead. No complaints there, except that when you RP being at odds with somebody like that and they don't do anything except complain about you OOC, you lose interest in making it work in any way. There's no 'good' way to roleplay a situation like that if the other player tries to ignore it expecting it to just disappear. It won't. Why should it? Do something about it. The amount of hate you can receive IC for doing what you are meant to do shouldn't surprise anybody, and it always goes both ways.

I'm not going to apologize OOC for the way my character acts because I am playing how a Taniel cleric should treat people like that, according to the lore (they didn't do themselves any favors when they were on the other end of the sharp stick, making the game much more difficult for me either).

Re: How should we treat eachother?

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 4:40 am
by morgaine
Aturshus wrote:With as much blame as there seems to be in this thread, let's make something quite clear. The problem is not that bad characters are automatically disliked by good characters, it's that the game is so focused on two major cities that everything else loses meaning. Let me try to explain (although it's 3 AM and I'm starving!)


I am sorry, but yes, it is. It very much is. Because more then 70% of the muds population is a good or semi good character. And they all NEED to play along the fanatic goodies, or they are fucked as well. And as I said in other threads, very much it boils also down to people not putting the slightest effort in the tension, they just kill or chase you off.

Aturshus wrote:A thief gets kicked out of Elvandar, for instance, or their presence there is not welcome and that is (and should) be made very clear. Because it is Elvandar, not because they shouldn't have a place in the game. Now, you might think Arborea is an alternative but it's really not. Ironhold doesn't have players, it's a stomping ground for just about all the 'big players'.


Look at what that Elvandar means: It's not just one city that thankfully only has one feature (horses) that you really are missing, but it's a whole lot of land mass that you can only go around and have to avoid at all cost. That contains some quests and some medium level training areas. Your only option then is to do what? yes, travel by ship! Ever tried traveling by ship every time you need something? It takes ages and it gets annoying quickly. Besides that goodies do not refine themselves to Elvandar lands, they'll attack you anywhere they see you. You of course, can argue they should, but as I tried to make clear before, that's what gets you only one type of evil: Strong sathos. Every other type of evil char is screwed by this behavior. At this point, I must say, if that's what the mud wants, I can live with it.

Aturshus wrote:What we need is a new city, a den of anarchy and fun where all our midway baddies can go and hang out and do their thing and what-have-you. Maybe they could have some form of law and even a leader (player?). Move the rogues there! Put the rogues in charge of the place! Whatever! Or maybe give them heavy influence (like the Skyrim thieves guild maybe?) It should be pretty well hidden and well guarded, but you could surely expect raids by various other cities? It would also be a good place to house an unaligned mercenary or fighter guild to give rogues some beefy allies.


While I would really love a place for baddies to hang out that's not essentially a dung hole (I'm looking at you, Asador), it would not solve anything, would it? People like my thrive on interaction with other players, on roleplay and certainly on conflict and tension between good and evil. Have you ever made a baddie and just let them idle a few days at Asador market? How many people do you think they'll meet? And I don't think it would be any better in that new city. There's no wish nor room in the player base for evil or even slightly evil. If it were, encounters would look vastly different. We would not see things like what Ghalt described or Rudolpho, but we would see them putting up tents for the tanielites for mercy or handing out free food in Arborea, fletching arrows for the rangers or making huge donations for the good of Taniel. I don't know, something that's worth a penance and actually fun for all parties involved.

Aturshus wrote:Basically right now good and 'well behaved neutral' are the only acceptable alignments because they're the only alignments with a place they can spend their time and people to socialize with.


They are the only acceptable ailgnments, yes. Where do you think those people should come from?

Aturshus wrote:I can tell you that the Taniels right now don't even hardline as much as they are meant to. It pretty much comes down to 'they repent openly or you LITERALLY BEAT IT OUT OF THEM', but mostly it comes down to rp and politics instead. No complaints there, except that when you RP being at odds with somebody like that and they don't do anything except complain about you OOC, you lose interest in making it work in any way. There's no 'good' way to roleplay a situation like that if the other player tries to ignore it expecting it to just disappear. It won't. Why should it? Do something about it. The amount of hate you can receive IC for doing what you are meant to do shouldn't surprise anybody, and it always goes both ways.


I can't say anything about that, because I never witnessed it.

Aturshus wrote:I'm not going to apologize OOC for the way my character acts because I am playing how a Taniel cleric should treat people like that, according to the lore (they didn't do themselves any favors when they were on the other end of the sharp stick, making the game much more difficult for me either).


I'm sorry ? You should end up on the receiving end of your medicine for a bit. This is offensive as hell. What part about "This is a game that we play together" do you not comprehend? You realize, that if others would approach this the way you do, you would be dead every time they cross your path? You would be left hanging on crosses to rot a lot with no means of escape?

Re: How should we treat eachother?

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:29 am
by mazarmormuk
why is arborea no solution for slight evil, aturshus?
asral clerics are slightly evil, too,
and the court ll surely not outlaw you forever for a theft or dissecting a corpse.

Imo everyone is right here. atushus is playing a correct taniel cleric if it comes to treatment of evil, same goes for luminier..both are rather too moderate than too strict in their roleplay.

The question is ask myself, is it code or playerbase or both that makes it impossible to play a role _against those fanatics..

As an example the current situation:
Arborea hunting the Lord Marshall (ONE person) for not accepting arborean law (which is definately a correct roleplay):
You encounter the rest of the crusaders in battle when you remove watchtowers, you encounter taniel clerics trying to protect the good, you encounter druids threatening you about war cause you hit unicorns, you encounter shaolins standing between you and the unicorn, too.
The rangers, from the beginning stating their neutrality in that battles, are the exception.
With some effort, you can discuss people icly into a moderate roleplay at least so arborea doesnt fall in a day with rather ooc reasons than following the given codexes.
You do not encounter _any_ arborean or other character that offers open assistance to your side.

the question to me is, does that moderate roleplay really help?

why would someone not ally with a moderate lord marshall, why would someone stand up against a taniel clergy bending their own rules?

the result of that is finally that i cannot play a slightly evil character that focusses against fanatic dicks without beeing stomped into the ground in no time.

Re: How should we treat eachother?

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:44 am
by Aslak
mazarmormuk wrote:As an example the current situation:
Arborea hunting the Lord Marshall (ONE person) for not accepting arborean law (which is definately a correct roleplay):
You encounter the rest of the crusaders in battle when you remove watchtowers, you encounter taniel clerics trying to protect the good, you encounter druids threatening you about war cause you hit unicorns, you encounter shaolins standing between you and the unicorn, too.


The only way to react to such a thing that would work in the current mud would be to be as fanatic and strict and outlaw everyone associated with Elvandar and create a bubble free of them. Of cause it would just end in being beaten up over and over again, but they could not take over the city.

But is such a situation really wanted, to have half the world outlawed in one of the two big cities, the other half in the other?

The situation is also based on the number of guilds. Arborea has one, Elvandar has four guilds that can rally. There will NEVER be any chance to change the fanatics unless they have to fear some opposition for their actions. Right now, that is just not going to happen. Only Sathos can do this because they are individually MUCH MORE POWERFUL then then anyone else can ever become, have no place that they were forced to defend and is valuable to them.

Re: How should we treat eachother?

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 7:54 am
by Delia
With four guilds I am assuming Crusaders, Taniels, Rangers and Monks. While D was the Shao speaker there was a policy of not taking part in wars between guild wars unless they spilled into cities and such. In such cases the monks would have stood at the gates of Elvandar against Asrals as much as at the gates of Arborea against Crusaders but if they just kept to massacring each other across the countryside it would have been considered regrettable but unavoidable and ultimately not a monk's business to take part in.

I do not know what the deal is these days though.

Re: How should we treat eachother?

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 8:09 am
by Aslak
Delia wrote:With four guilds I am assuming Crusaders, Taniels, Rangers and Monks.


No, monks I did not count towards the four guilds. I meant Crusader, Taniel Church, Rangers and Evren Druids.

Rangers were the only guild that did not threaten with death, war etc, but said they would only defend Elvandar themself if it should get attacked.

Re: How should we treat eachother?

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 8:15 am
by Delia
Snap, I constantly forget the druids.

Re: How should we treat eachother?

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:44 pm
by Aturshus
Druids do not, and as far as I know, are not even allowed to participate in any fighting against a living.

I'm going to ignore the angry ranting here and address the actual points in order to move the conversation forward.

You're making a lot of assumptions, poMorgaine, so let me clarify.

Never once has my character outright just killed people. I roleplay it and the roleplay is what they're whining about. OF COURSE good characters are going to dislike bad characters. Seriously, who are you kidding? The code just doesn't give those bad characters any support. We need more domains than just the ones we have, we need services (like horses) to be available in more locations (also guilds in each city). Nobody should be killed outright without a chance at some roleplay, unless they are already a well established foe and even then RP is preferred, but you can't blame a player for doing what their role demands of them, it's not our fault Elvandar is such a big part of the world. That's what I keep saying, we need more world so certain groups only control a smaller chunk of it and therefore make it less a big deal if you are kicked out of one place. Keep in mind that if moderate evil characters did get a place to go, you would get a lot more roleplay opportunities rather than less, because by giving players more options besides playing a goodie, more characters of other types will start popping up and you'd eventually get a new society going with like-minded characters. You'd still have that tension between good and evil but it wouldn't mean your character is unplayable by any means. There needs to be better ways for rogues to thrive in an environment where they are unwelcome, of course. Once again, disguises need looked at.

Throwing blame at people who are doing what they're supposed to do is really annoying. Even as I explain that my stance is that we need more support for evil characters, it doesn't seem like you even read the last part you quoted. I am not going to apologize because I'm doing what I'm meant to do, I'm roleplaying it out instead of just killing people, and I'm already being much more lenient than I'm SUPPOSED to be. And yet I can assure you most of this is because I'm doing exactly that?

And I already get killed pretty often when I come across somebody who is my enemy, because YES, it's kill or be killed. I don't complain, because that's part of the game. I died 6 times in the past month or so and last I checked, all that happened to the character Rudolpho was some people hurt his feelings.

poMazar,
Arborea is decent enough for some evils, but not all. Especially not the rogue-dabbling gwennie or the like. :P
What I'm suggesting is a big pirate port of some kind, hidden somewhere along one of the coastlines (but not so far out that it's horribly inconvenient of course!)