Some thoughts on the "Eternal Battle" and consequence.

[rspwn]

Recently I've been engaged in Underdark V Surface pvp. Considering the amount of people involved It's been very enjoyable and fun, even when losing. So kudos to the community.

The Eternal Battle, Underdark vs the "Free Peoples". It truly is an eternal struggle, as it should be. That being said, many people take "Eternal" a little too seriously. What does this mean?

If a character has led multiple assaults,defences and has gotten themselves killed, repeatedly. Whether by RP "executions" or straight PVP demise. (these both hold different IC consequences. IMO)
Then a level of responsibility to maintain the integrity of the setting is admirable. By rolling, or dire consequences for your characters story. It is up to the player how they wish to handle this.
But. Not all characters are equal.

A footman does not hold the same value as a paragon of authority within a settlement.
He doesn't hold the same sway to organise a raid against his foes.
He doesn't have the level of reputation they do.
He cannot influence their settlement,guild,etc the same way.
Examples can go on and on.

They're not equal and shouldn't be judged on the same dire consequence for quite blatant DEATH. It goes without saying you should always maintain responsibility. Regardless of your IC held position,etc.

What problems does this create? It causes stagnation, harms setting integrity, harms dynamic/evolving storytelling, strengthens cliques and makes it harder for new characters, ideas to develop.

Now then. What can be done? There are people who've been around much longer than I who've thought this over,out,back again and still cannot firmly decide. Nonetheless, here's my contribution.

This is DND, virtual, but DND. We even have our lovely DM's to assist and arbitrate. As this is quite a delicate topic. In my mind, it requires communication between DM's and these influential,paragon characters. To a lesser degree, the "footmen"

We trust the DM's to make the right decision, the right call on a number of things. Handing out appropriate consequences for meaningful character deaths should be part of that.

Whether it's enforcing a longer debuff period. To permanent changes to your character(With communication to the player), death, MODS.

Do not mistake this as complaining that Arelith isn't "IRONMAN MODE." Because it's not and I don't want it to be.
I'm of the opinion that important characters, influential characters, characters of position and reputation, even power. Shouldn't be eternal. As these players likely have a high RPB, they're aware of what it takes to get there. Yet it seems once there they forget what it took. Which is where I think DM's should remind them.

[Deep Fried Thinking Emoji]

Nah. Characters shouldn't be facing permanent deletion for getting killed in the awkward laggy massive pvp of the week.

Most players are more than willing to roll their characters when the narrative is engaging and interesting, and they can add something meaningful to it by doing so. Maybe the narrative around said pvp is just not interesting enough to make anyone feel the need to kill their characters for good.

[Eyeliner]

If anything people roll too quickly here. I know there are characters who outstay their welcome but for every one of those I meet there are ten who disappear just as you're getting something going with them.

[rspwn]

Nah. Characters shouldn't be facing permanent deletion for getting killed in the awkward laggy massive pvp of the week.

"Meaningful deaths" isn't covered by laggy pvp battle.

[Morgy]

I agree that characters in positions of power shouldn't be around /forever/... but uh, PvP is not the way to do that. PvP skill/builds has nothing to do with RP and shouldn't be at all involved in who gets to live on, and who doesn't, which is partly what you're suggesting here it seems like.

Look at Cordor, for example. There's been a Chancellor in place for maybe almost a RL year now? But in that time there was one other challenger, who probably wasnt' the best of organised candidates (but kudos for doing it!!). Sometimes the playerbase doesn't step forward to change things and that's got nothing to do with PvP deaths. Making it more likely you'll get deleted for having a 'leading' PC, just means we'll have even less leading PCs than we do now. That'd be a shame.

Eyeliner also makes a good point - PCs vanish way too often without any closure/reasoning, which is also a pity!

[MissEvelyn]

If anything people roll too quickly here. I know there are characters who outstay their welcome but for every one of those I meet there are ten who disappear just as you're getting something going with them.

So quickly that most of the time, you cannot hope to establish any meaningful bond between your character and theirs.

[Cthuletta]

If more risks were put in for prominent characters, I'd agree that we'd see less people putting their foot forward for leadership roles.
There's also the question of 'What counts as prominent?' The Chancellor/Mayor/High Sheriff? A House Matron? A Noble Lord? Does a Minister count, or their aides?
There are commoners who people rely on and are well known and well liked, do they count as important and pivotal? The line just seems a bit too blurred for my liking since who is 'important' is based on personal opinion and interaction, not so much titles.

I DO agree that death as a whole needs to be treated a little more seriously, it's a bit awkward to walk up to someone like 'I saw you die!' and they just reply 'I got better', but that's more a case of roleplaying out one's injuries than implementing a harder ruling or 'punishment' for mechanical death.

[rspwn]

There's also the question of 'What counts as prominent?' The Chancellor/Mayor/High Sheriff? A House Matron? A Noble Lord? Does a Minister count, or their aides?

I would say it always depends on the manner of their demise. For example, if the High Sheriff is caught and publically executed by a faction. If they come back after that once, okay, sure. But twice or more, there needs to be penalties.

But, as another said. If they're killed in a laggy pvp brawl,battle Then obviously there should be leeway. "I got knocked out, I slipped away, etc."

In regards to what counts as prominent. I think all of those would count. As it's dependent on their actions.

Any engaged in a large amount of PVP, or primarily the driving forces that cause organised pvp. Should value their lives more than they do currently. I don't think any really disagrees with this, just how it might be implemented.

[tessimon]

I think encouraging a culture where the faction leaders coordinate OOC for date/location for pivotal battles and agreed upon repercussions would help things. This could build up trust between players and positively impact spontaneous smaller conflicts too.

I consider it like a card game, everyone agrees to the outline (e.g. five-card draw) and places their bets. The outcome isn't known and there is a tangible stake both parties agreed upon. The players are cooperating while still being in competition.

[-XXX-]

Social status for characters often comes with a whole list of managerial responsibilities.

Very often this can feel like the player's practically taking a second job - not that many players are eager to or have the time to do this. I think that we should be happy that there are still those who want to.

Making these characters end in one way or another wouldn't have helped keeping things fresh - it'd create a power vacuum and dysfunctional empty settlements.

[Amateur Hour]

Perhaps a bit of a lighter-weight take on the core point:

It sort of boggles my mind when we have military leaders on one side of the Surface/UD conflict who keep dying/losing and yet they're still trusted with power. Maybe people don't have to stay dead, but perhaps they should be resigning from the military part of the job if this ends up being a consistent pattern.

[AskRyze]

Who matters enough to die?

What you will see is a small handful of people - glorified NPCs at this rate - hiding away in their quarters, only coming out to refresh their shops during the Australian sunrise - in the positions that are sufficiently important enough to get Consequence'd. Then, everyone else - just important enough to be better than you, but sufficiently unimportant to dodge harsh Conequencing - will, by chance, happen upon a strange wanderer who will serendipitously join their raiding party for shiggles. Because people want to play with their friends and people don't want their characters to die by anyone's terms except their own.

Arelith already has the great mercy that is a lack of impervious safe spaces from behind which the Nobilis can launch insults without chance of a plebian's thrown tomato can besmirch their frilly collar. Let's not push the conflict adverse players deeper into their quarters and further out of sight of the rest of the playerbase. Lord knows some settlements already have that problem.

[Royal Blood]

Hi, I play Faeris. My quick thoughts:

1: Settlement leadership can be tricky to balance. I do believe a leader and their faction should take advantage of their spot and have their time in the sun but also make an end point. A point where a faction backs off and focuses on supporting others or retires. Some circulation is ideal imo.

2: I think for pvp there's two things here. It's important we respect a players connection to their character and not to judge eachother over that. Arelith gives the player a lot of freedom to decide their own fate. That being said, narrative blockers can get moved by DMs so I think it's important we all try to respect the larger setting

The second thing is like put yourself in the shoes if another player. They put in time, efforts etc to maybe kill your character in pvp. I think it's like respectful to validate your opposition. Especially if you're a leader. Allow things to impact your character.

But I want to super emphasize. Since this topic is talking about current events. Please do not feel pressure to do one thing or the other. Consider what's good narratively and validates your fellow players but also consider what you want or can handle.

In the end we're here for fun. So if your idea of fun and my idea don't mesh? That's okay! We juet got to be respectful and try to ensure the story can flow.

[Deep Fried Thinking Emoji]

I would say it always depends on the manner of their demise. For example, if the High Sheriff is caught and publically executed by a faction. If they come back after that once, okay, sure. But twice or more, there needs to be penalties.

Why? Allowing cliques to delete the characters of people they don't like by scryganking someone a few times is absurd. We really don't need people griefing others even more on the server, we already got enough of that.

Who is influential enough to be applied this treatment, and what constitutes a meaningful death is also extremely subjective. If the DMs started telling people to roll it would be meet by the community with accusations of favoritism, bad blood, and would develop into a worse server health overall.

I understand the sentiment. Actions rarely have consequences in Arelith, but letting people assert their narrative on others by just killing them would not solve the issue, it would just create new issues.

For as long as murdering people doesn't have any real consequence, dying shouldn't either.

[somecritter]

I would encourage adding more parameters to dying, especially if this happens to be done by another player. It's honestly needed at this point where a large scale of people do not respect death. They can do incredibly risky things, then end up dying and fifteen minutes later join in on a social event acting as if nothing had happened.

A more punishing system could absolutely work; it works outside of Arelith, so why wouldn't it work here?

Perhaps a bit of a lighter-weight take on the core point:

It sort of boggles my mind when we have military leaders on one side of the Surface/UD conflict who keep dying/losing and yet they're still trusted with power. Maybe people don't have to stay dead, but perhaps they should be resigning from the military part of the job if this ends up being a consistent pattern.

Absolutely this, but since death has practically no consequences, leading your army into defeat also has no real consequence.

[Irongron]

I cam only really repeat what I've stated many times before - that while it can certainly be enjoyable NwN (and indeed D&D) is not designed as a PvP fantasy battle game, and is instead geared towards small party vs monsters.

Just by having PvP on Arelith we've had to make hundreds, if not thousands of changes to core mechanics just to level the playing field. This comes at a high price.

If anything if I'd like to move away from this perception that PvP is the 'end game' of Arelith, especially mass PvP, which is where, despite all of our efforts, the game really breaks down.

I'm regard to encouraging players to move on. I think we've gone much too far in the other direction. Levelling is now so swift that many characters have a lifespan of just a few weeks on the server. My current has just turned 21, and I've had something like...3 brief interactions so far.

[Power Word, Haste]

can do incredibly risky things, then end up dying and fifteen minutes later join in on a social event acting as if nothing had happened.

Daily Itinerary

Hour 4: Run Avernus
Hour 5: Loot blueleaf sample
Hour 6: Respond to UD Raid
Hour 7: Get bashed
Hour 8: Language Lesson
Hour 10: Date Auction

[Eira]

I'm all for spending a day or so limping about every time my PC dies, but I think it's silly to think that people should avoid events for the sake of it. There's a point where being able to hobble over to the festival that's been planned for an irl month is just... fun? That thing we're all here for?

But I do agree that being completely blasé is also silly.

Yes, yes, I know that memory rules exist, but there is so much more to the rp around death and recovering from it than "SOMEONE KILLED ME"

[LurkingShadow]

It feels a bit irritating to readd braggart notes from the Underdark. Sometimes they get defeated on the surface, to no consequences what so ever it seems. While one failed defense or counter attack by the surface renders in slavery or executions. The attacks by the UD? They are slowly turning into griefing. What is the goal here beyon just killing people for fun? There need to be consequences for the Underdark aswell. That prisoner system that been hinted at need to be implemented.

That or NPCs need to react and hunt down outcasts and monster races. NPC leaders like the Founders Council need to mobilize and rally the levies. Cordors king should call for the Amnians to start sacking and burning down Andunorian ties and convoys. Something need to happen.

EDIT: And yes, people will say thats "not okay" and "No fun". But the surfacers in the UD is outcasts for a reason and the Underdark is not ever unified for long for a reason.

[svet]

It feels a bit irritating to raed braggart notes from the Underdark. Sometimes they get defeat on the surface, to no consequences what so ever it seems. While one failed defense or counter attack by the surface renders in slavery or executions. The attacks by the UD? They are slowly turning into griefing. What is the goal here beyon just killing people for fun? There need to be consequences for the Underdark aswell. That prisoner system that been hinted at need to be implemented.

That or NPCs need to react and hunt down outcasts and monster races. NPC leaders like the Founders Council need to mobilize and rally the levies. Cordors king should call for the Amnians to start sacking and burning down Andunorian ties and convoys. Something need to happen.

EDIT: And yes, people will say thats "not okay" and "No fun". But the surfacers in the UD is outcasts for a reason and the Underdark is not ever unified for long for a reason.

Woah. Hold on chief. You're making a lot of assumptions here when you have likely never ever been involved in the Underdark.

[Power Word, Haste]

The attacks by the UD? They are slowly turning into griefing. What is the goal here beyon just killing people for fun? There need to be consequences for the Underdark aswell.

Well, if you actually took part in any of it maybe you would see the stories being told.

[LurkingShadow]

The attacks by the UD? They are slowly turning into griefing. What is the goal here beyon just killing people for fun? There need to be consequences for the Underdark aswell.

Well, if you actually took part in any of it maybe you would see the stories being told.

It feels a bit irritating to raed braggart notes from the Underdark. Sometimes they get defeat on the surface, to no consequences what so ever it seems. While one failed defense or counter attack by the surface renders in slavery or executions. The attacks by the UD? They are slowly turning into griefing. What is the goal here beyon just killing people for fun? There need to be consequences for the Underdark aswell. That prisoner system that been hinted at need to be implemented.

That or NPCs need to react and hunt down outcasts and monster races. NPC leaders like the Founders Council need to mobilize and rally the levies. Cordors king should call for the Amnians to start sacking and burning down Andunorian ties and convoys. Something need to happen.

EDIT: And yes, people will say thats "not okay" and "No fun". But the surfacers in the UD is outcasts for a reason and the Underdark is not ever unified for long for a reason.

Woah. Hold on chief. You're making a lot of assumptions here when you have likely never ever been involved in the Underdark.

You make a lot of assumptions think I have not been involved on some level with the Underdark.

EDIT: And even if I do not know the full picture? Does not change the fact that the UD always have the upper hand and need to have a similar punishment upon them like the slavery or capturing of PCs like you bring upon the surface.

[magistrasa]

the UD always have the upper hand and need to have a similar punishment upon them like the slavery or capturing of PCs like you bring upon the surface.

I don't know if it can be characterized as an "upper hand" - I've mused often and long-windedly about the unbalanced nature of surface-UD relations and how the UD needs the surface to exist, yet is discouraged from ever meaningfully interacting with the surface - but it's true that the UD has more "mechanically supported" means to instill terror upon their enemies. The abundance of Evil-aligned classes give them access to a wider variety of unique abilities that their goodly counterparts can't utilize, the slavery system is a way to actually take trophies of victory in a way that surfacers can't replicate (although the system is opt-in), and even though there's a time limit to it, it's easier to launch a surface raid than it is to run a counter-raid against the Underdark. Rather than perceiving it as strictly punitive, I see the idea as simply a suggestion to create more avenues of interaction between the surface and underdark. I think most people agree this would be hugely welcome, especially if it gave surfacers something to do other than just killbash the filthy monsters. What something like that could be though... I have no idea.

[LurkingShadow]

the UD always have the upper hand and need to have a similar punishment upon them like the slavery or capturing of PCs like you bring upon the surface.

I don't know if it can be characterized as an "upper hand" - I've mused often and long-windedly about the unbalanced nature of surface-UD relations and how the UD needs the surface to exist, yet is discouraged from ever meaningfully interacting with the surface - but it's true that the UD has more "mechanically supported" means to instill terror upon their enemies. The abundance of Evil-aligned classes give them access to a wider variety of unique abilities that their goodly counterparts can't utilize, the slavery system is a way to actually take trophies of victory in a way that surfacers can't replicate (although the system is opt-in), and even though there's a time limit to it, it's easier to launch a surface raid than it is to run a counter-raid against the Underdark. Rather than perceiving it as strictly punitive, I see the idea as simply a suggestion to create more avenues of interaction between the surface and underdark. I think most people agree this would be hugely welcome, especially if it gave surfacers something to do other than just killbash the filthy monsters. What something like that could be though... I have no idea.

Yeah, I think there need to be something else to it than just killbashing as vengeance for kidnappings. Far as I know, it is STRICTLY forbidden for UD and Surface to be to "friendly".

I do not think its a good atmosphere to always read about engagements that is just basically for bragging or to take slaves. I am strictly against the slave system, I think its a really weird system but I had it explained by a player, why it is here and then it, this discussion, made me understand why there is a slavery system.

But I think it is a bit tilted currently. But I imagine it is a bit ebb and flow. Sometimes the UD get the upper hand, other times the surface. But it is discouraging to hear about constant PvP and the faction with the most PvP Old NWN Foxes wins.

EDIT: And to any UD player that taken offense or felt like they needed to point out im oocly not in the know. Sorry about that. I can be a bit aggressive in home I write I think.

[somecritter]

I'm all for spending a day or so limping about every time my PC dies, but I think it's silly to think that people should avoid events for the sake of it. There's a point where being able to hobble over to the festival that's been planned for an irl month is just... fun? That thing we're all here for?

But I do agree that being completely blasé is also silly.

Yes, yes, I know that memory rules exist, but there is so much more to the rp around death and recovering from it than "SOMEONE KILLED ME"

People absolutely should go to events that they have been looking forward to. However, if you know your brother's wedding is in two hours and it leaves you just enough time to do a quick raid, then maybe consider if doing that raid is really what you should be doing. Yes, someone may be involuntarily a victim, but in my experience, that is not often.

It feels a bit irritating to readd braggart notes from the Underdark. Sometimes they get defeated on the surface, to no consequences what so ever it seems. While one failed defense or counter attack by the surface renders in slavery or executions. The attacks by the UD? They are slowly turning into griefing. What is the goal here beyon just killing people for fun? There need to be consequences for the Underdark aswell. That prisoner system that been hinted at need to be implemented.

That or NPCs need to react and hunt down outcasts and monster races. NPC leaders like the Founders Council need to mobilize and rally the levies. Cordors king should call for the Amnians to start sacking and burning down Andunorian ties and convoys. Something need to happen.

EDIT: And yes, people will say thats "not okay" and "No fun". But the surfacers in the UD is outcasts for a reason and the Underdark is not ever unified for long for a reason.

Please, let us be civil here and not throw away one side's efforts to create engaging roleplay. Saying it resembles griefing is really unjustified...

If people are tired of an eternal conflict, then there are ways to end it in an ICly manner. It would be dishonest to dismiss that fact but it may involve taking the story down some avenues where one side does not come out on top as the victor.

It is a dynamic world of roleplaying. Death should have consequences, good does not always prevail, but it may rise from the ashes and reclaim its past glory.