Conflict and the surface.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

Just posing this as a question, I am not necessarily suggesting it but--

What if we pulled back leadership powers some, so the topmost rulers of Cordor, Brog, the new city etc were NPCs and generally indifferent to our lowly PCs and only brought out by the DMs for the most very important story moments.

We could still elect leaders to lesser positions of power and possibly even more of them-- a minister of trade, a leader of the guard, a religious leader, the lord of the slums and some other positions could be held in Cordor, and as each is a separate elected post they could actually be held by different and clashing factions. Now you have more intrigue and less ability for one group to have total control of the RP in a settlement.

Maybe there's just too much power in centralized PC leadership now? I don't know, it's just a thought.

This isn't a bad idea actually.

I tend to like this idea too. The issue is Arelith's player base has a bad habit of cudgeling their DMs to death. It'd take a complete culture change to give DMs that kind of pull IG and I can tell already the accusations of corruptions etc would be endless...

Still, I think this is the -best- way to run things. It allows DMs, who are a third party, to move along a story players may otherwise not move along out of fear or lack of desire to. I really, really think Arelith misses - a lot- by reserving their DMs to primarily paper work and occasional small plots. But, I don't think Arelith would function atm with a more active DM presence IC. The culture just isn't up for it.

I would actually rather the dms used "the power of the mob" more then putting themselves in leadership positions, meaning if a leader does something stupid that adversely effects the city the commoners rise up against said leader. This could even be something a persuasive and charismatic pc could do against a leader if the plan is sound. I would still play Arelith if it became ruled by npcs, I just really like the idea of pc leaders...as long as there are consequences for being bad at it. And by consequences I mean an epic tale of mishaps and tragedy, not ooc obviously.

All that said, if what you say about the dms being held back is true, that really is a shame. Sure there is always going to be someone who thinks the world is out to get them and the team might end up being a target for their delusions at some point or another, but I will repeat again that a lack of feeling like the world is alive around the players is really the only complaint I would ever have about arelith. Ok that's not true, I'm a New Yorker at my core and complaining is my life, but its the only big thing I would ever complain about.

[AstralUniverse]

Just posing this as a question, I am not necessarily suggesting it but--

What if we pulled back leadership powers some, so the topmost rulers of Cordor, Brog, the new city etc were NPCs and generally indifferent to our lowly PCs and only brought out by the DMs for the most very important story moments.

We could still elect leaders to lesser positions of power and possibly even more of them-- a minister of trade, a leader of the guard, a religious leader, the lord of the slums and some other positions could be held in Cordor, and as each is a separate elected post they could actually be held by different and clashing factions. Now you have more intrigue and less ability for one group to have total control of the RP in a settlement.

Maybe there's just too much power in centralized PC leadership now? I don't know, it's just a thought.

Its an interesting idea but I feel like it could quickly escalate to Whoever controls the gold is effectively the chancellor.

[-XXX-]

it's precisely this. "Criticism of social RPers" is a bad shorthand for what is basically just clique-based reactionary OOC bullying by people who get very upset if you decide to set up in their toybox (which is actually everyone's toybox).

"Clique-based reactionary OOC bullying" that weaponizes the setting.

Historically, drastic outside changes to the setting have proven to be much more effective in addressing these issues than any mechanical tweaks or rule policies (Benwick, Wharftown, Cataclysm).

[Ninjimmy]

Just posing this as a question, I am not necessarily suggesting it but--

What if we pulled back leadership powers some, so the topmost rulers of Cordor, Brog, the new city etc were NPCs and generally indifferent to our lowly PCs and only brought out by the DMs for the most very important story moments.

We could still elect leaders to lesser positions of power and possibly even more of them-- a minister of trade, a leader of the guard, a religious leader, the lord of the slums and some other positions could be held in Cordor, and as each is a separate elected post they could actually be held by different and clashing factions. Now you have more intrigue and less ability for one group to have total control of the RP in a settlement.

Maybe there's just too much power in centralized PC leadership now? I don't know, it's just a thought.

RIP Gouge's inbox but I have a weigh in for this too - isn't that first part already the case?

Cordor's chancellor answers to King Edward, Brogendenstein's Thane to the Dwarven King, Myon the Elven, etc
There is a higher NPC authority in the settlements

Though I do also think having conflicting power points could be interesting - a "Noble" Chancellor and a "Commoners" Chancellor in Cordor with equal powers could lead to an interesting power struggle.

[Flower Power]

RIP Gouge's inbox but I have a weigh in for this too - isn't that first part already the case?

Cordor's chancellor answers to King Edward, Brogendenstein's Thane to the Dwarven King, Myon the Elven, etc
There is a higher NPC authority in the settlements

Cordor is the only settlement where the PC ruler is beholden to a higher power.
Myon is autonomous and independent from Evermeet, ruled by its own monarch, and there is no singular overarching dwarven hegemony in the setting that could claim ownership over Brogendenstein - it's its own holdfast.

[Red_Wharf]

Just posing this as a question, I am not necessarily suggesting it but--

What if we pulled back leadership powers some, so the topmost rulers of Cordor, Brog, the new city etc were NPCs and generally indifferent to our lowly PCs and only brought out by the DMs for the most very important story moments.

We could still elect leaders to lesser positions of power and possibly even more of them-- a minister of trade, a leader of the guard, a religious leader, the lord of the slums and some other positions could be held in Cordor, and as each is a separate elected post they could actually be held by different and clashing factions. Now you have more intrigue and less ability for one group to have total control of the RP in a settlement.

Maybe there's just too much power in centralized PC leadership now? I don't know, it's just a thought.

I think there is merit to the idea on the second paragraph, but I am not so sure about the one in the first. I feel like every time a NPC that rules over a settlement steps in, it's to wave the "no fun allowed" flag. Wasn't it like that how the last surface "war" ended before it even started?

[Ninjimmy]

RIP Gouge's inbox but I have a weigh in for this too - isn't that first part already the case?

Cordor's chancellor answers to King Edward, Brogendenstein's Thane to the Dwarven King, Myon the Elven, etc
There is a higher NPC authority in the settlements

Cordor is the only settlement where the PC ruler is beholden to a higher power.
Myon is autonomous and independent from Evermeet, ruled by its own monarch, and there is no singular overarching dwarven hegemony in the setting that could claim ownership over Brogendenstein - it's its own holdfast.

Huh, I coulda sworn that there was something about a mainland dwarf kingdom having some say over Brog and that's why the title is Thane (as in, they're granted land by a king) and there was a Myon royal line that the Coronal represents? I could be way off with these but it was my understanding that's why settlements had the titles they did.

[Wethrinea]

I'll make the following disclaimer: I have played NwN since it came out,mainly on three servers; The Three Kingdoms, Amia, and now Arelith, with their varying player cultures, levels of direct DM involvement and mechanical changes. Across all servers, the least enjoyable aspect of the game for me has always been PvP. Not because I detest conflict and want to play second life, or because I cant calculate metrics and optimal builds. I dare say i build pretty solid character sheets, at least when applied to PvE.

The reason why I dislike -most- PvP is because it is inherently meaningless. It adds nothing except adrenaline and (very) short lived bragging rights. As long as we can respawn our characters as many times as we like, death in PvP (or PvE) has no meaning in itself. And conflict between factions and people usually becomes an endless cycle of tit for tat ganksquading, because that is pretty much the only mode of open conflict that setting allows. I'll come back to that point later.

On the other hand, I did try a server with fixed level and permadeath once. It was fun for a week. Then it died down because all the characters, well, died. So I do not see permadeath as a solution either. Or harsher penalties on respawn, because few things annoy me more than temporary penalties that impede my ability to play the game when I finally have a few hours to spare.

The PvP that I do enjoy is the sort that requires an understandning, explicit or implicit, between the participants that this is a defining moment in the story arch of their characters. That this matters, whether your character win or lose. And that both victory and defeat will represent a gain for all players involved in terms of enjoyment. Unfortunately, the mechanics of NwN PvP is ill suited for this, because instead of a enjoyable spectacle that could be narrated over a chapter, it is usually over in a round of quick animations, with whoever strikes first usually being the victor. So it is very rare that I find any enjoyment in PvP. One exception was just this saturday when I lost to a pair of drow who to my great suprise dropped a dracolich on my head after a tense standoff. That was fun because it was surprising. And learned my character a valuable lesson.

On to modes of open conflict. I see the greatest problem is inherent in the setting and in the concept of RPG's in general. D&D is designed with the assumption that a Small Party of Heroes will rise to challenge and defeat the Forces of Evil that threaten the town/kingdom/empire/world/galaxy. The party has to work their way up to being a credible threat to the Forces of Evil, and are always outnumbered, outgunned and outspent. It would not be very exciting otherwise.

But that is what happens on player dominated servers. When players run mighty factions and control entire nations it is -they- who are powerful and dominant, not the Forces of Evil, the latter reduced to other player characters who are outnumbered, outgunned and outspent by the Small Party of Heroes. In my two year stint on Arelith, I have not once felt that villanous characters represented a threat on the scale of the Forces of Evil. Sure, they can lay in wait to ambush, kill and capture a PC here and there, run around with undead or demonic summons, and subsequently be ganksquaded for it, but they never represent an existential threat to the settlements and nations of Arelith.

And that is in no way their fault. I applaud the efforts of those players who are willing to take their chances with a villanous character. It is a thankless task, and the odds are stacked so tall against them that they might as well try to ascend Mt. Everest with two hands and a leg tied behind their back. My point is this: Without direct DM support for villains, they will never be a credible threat to the rest of the world, simply because they are in the minority, and even the most powerful PC necromancer is limited to an army of three dread mummies. No Legions of the Damned for you.

This also holds true for less evil antagonist or others who try to shake things up. If the majority of PC's in a given settlement is content with the status quo, there is very little a player can do to change that. One discontent character and his three friends does not make a rebellious crowd, or a sinister network of underworld criminals who can challenge the good and great of the city.

Hence conflict is limited to a bit on inter-personal intrigue and tit for tat PvP that in the end does not really move anything, except perhaps make people quit their characters in frustration. At least that is my take on this. I might be wrong of course.

I wish to offer two suggestions though:
1) Make it easier for players with a good idea to get DM aid to enact villanous deeds or stir things up.
2) Think hard on when and why you engage in PvP. While it may make complete IC sense to jump on every necromancer, infernalist or monster you see, it seldom achieves anything tangible. And while your paladin or blackguard may wish nothing more than painting the walls with the blood of your opposite, perhaps there is another way to create a meaningful character arc for both parties?

[Marsi]

I don't think more NPC middlemen is the answer. I think the kind of problem player we've identified here actually thrives in bureaucratic institutions that have ambiguous power arrangements. It's more ground for them to make their own reality and feel safe from the assertions of their opponents.

It's too easy to ignore the authority of a PC when they're not the top of the foodchain. I've seen the Arelithian "I want to speak to your manager" done where one goes over the PC authority's head and roleplays at a more supremely vested NPC out of the belief it will spark a DM interaction. Whether they do this out of genuine disrespect for player authority or because they cynically believe a DM encounter will be more toothless than a clash of players, I don't know.

I'd love to see the "faction vs faction" component of settlements expanded.

[-XXX-]

Just posing this as a question, I am not necessarily suggesting it but--

What if we pulled back leadership powers some, so the topmost rulers of Cordor, Brog, the new city etc were NPCs and generally indifferent to our lowly PCs and only brought out by the DMs for the most very important story moments.

We could still elect leaders to lesser positions of power and possibly even more of them-- a minister of trade, a leader of the guard, a religious leader, the lord of the slums and some other positions could be held in Cordor, and as each is a separate elected post they could actually be held by different and clashing factions. Now you have more intrigue and less ability for one group to have total control of the RP in a settlement.

Maybe there's just too much power in centralized PC leadership now? I don't know, it's just a thought.

I think there is merit to the idea on the second paragraph, but I am not so sure about the one in the first. I feel like every time a NPC that rules over a settlement steps in, it's to wave the "no fun allowed" flag. Wasn't it like that how the last surface "war" ended before it even started?

I wouldn't worry too much about the "no fun allowed flag" being waved there TBH. I think that the DMs have shown by now that they can be trusted to only ever pull the breaks on those ongoing IG events that would detrimentally impact the server - and they sure don't need some NPC for that.

On the other hand, this concept might represent a rather seamless way of introducing some general agenda to settlements in order to prevent stagnant RP.
Cordor's Bane celebration month is a fantastic example of this.

Player driven agency is great, but it can often degenerate into the "persecute and exile all opposition, give cookies to BFFs and pretend to be a big deal while never leaving town" routine.
Settlement leaders having some boss to occasionally poke them with a "stop messing around and do your job" remark might go a long way towards addressing this.

[A little fellow]

It's entirely possible to have Conflict without PvP (I've done it in Cordor via political scheming, maneuvering and machinations, forcing people to react and oppose me in a fashion that allow for direct violent confrontation to be socially permissible.) It's also entirely possible to have PvP without it being an unfair grinding slogfest: I attempted to organize intersettlement wargames a few years back, recurring events that would involve a number of events and trials - some of which were highly regulated individual and small-group PvP - with the losing party having to give up some sort of battle standard, flag or symbol to the victor to be held for a year until it could be challenged for again, and the victor having to organize a feast to honor the defeated. But the ideas of having to arrange for an equitable and even contest of arms (a lot of people refuse to take any sort of risk unless victory is OVERWHELMINGLY ASSURED, it's part of the "I must win and I'm afraid of losing" culture we discussed becoming prevalent earlier) and having to actually give up something (even if it's just a friggin' fixture) if they lost spooked so many people that the idea failed to gain any traction with other settlements and didn't go anywhere.

Social RP is not inherently bad. Demonizing individuals (especially on an OOC level, which happens a lot) for creating conflict (which, again, is what drives narrative - and the entire purpose of tabletop roleplaying is collaborative narrative building) so that Social RP can become the dominant, unimpeded force is.

I somewhat disagree with with the idea that most people refuse to take a risk unless victory is overwhelmingly assured. In my opinion the biggest problem is when groups of people take a risk without considering the possibility that they could lose. It's a subtle difference, but the inability to consider yourself the loser is what makes most all of these settlement on settlement conflicts drag out until nobody cares anymore.

I think if you are going to start a war with somebody, you should do it after coming to terms with the fact that if anyone is to lose the war, it should most likely be you as the initiator. If you start a war without being comfortable with the possibility of RPing your defeat, maybe don't start the war?

As for demonising individuals, that is unfortunately just the product having a game where several communities of players share the same space .. but when an individual starts a conflict they just soak up more of the demonising that is all too common. Best way to deal with that is to call it out, even (and especially) if it's people you play with.

[A little fellow]

Just posing this as a question, I am not necessarily suggesting it but--

What if we pulled back leadership powers some, so the topmost rulers of Cordor, Brog, the new city etc were NPCs and generally indifferent to our lowly PCs and only brought out by the DMs for the most very important story moments.

We could still elect leaders to lesser positions of power and possibly even more of them-- a minister of trade, a leader of the guard, a religious leader, the lord of the slums and some other positions could be held in Cordor, and as each is a separate elected post they could actually be held by different and clashing factions. Now you have more intrigue and less ability for one group to have total control of the RP in a settlement.

Maybe there's just too much power in centralized PC leadership now? I don't know, it's just a thought.

I think there is merit to the idea on the second paragraph, but I am not so sure about the one in the first. I feel like every time a NPC that rules over a settlement steps in, it's to wave the "no fun allowed" flag. Wasn't it like that how the last surface "war" ended before it even started?

In my experience, DMs or Devs tend not to have that much of a feel for what's going on RP-wise in settlements when compared to the players actually playing in them .. nor should they really be expected to given their other voluntary duties.

[Cybren]

I don't think more NPC middlemen is the answer. I think the kind of problem player we've identified here actually thrives in bureaucratic institutions that have ambiguous power arrangements. It's more ground for them to make their own reality and feel safe from the assertions of their opponents.

It's too easy to ignore the authority of a PC when they're not the top of the foodchain. I've seen the Arelithian "I want to speak to your manager" done where one goes over the PC authority's head and roleplays at a more supremely vested NPC out of the belief it will spark a DM interaction. Whether they do this out of genuine disrespect for player authority or because they cynically believe a DM encounter will be more toothless than a clash of players, I don't know.

I'd love to see the "faction vs faction" component of settlements expanded.

I don't think this is a matter of "more NPC middlemen", so much as I think Arelith has, as long as I've played it, consistently lacked very active NPCs at all. There's always been a culture on Arelith that "player driven RP" is superior to anything involving a DM, which is kooky to me. In basically any other roleplaying context that has DM's their entire job is to be the one's who drive narrative in reaction to PC actions, they're the ones who introduce new elements to complicate the PC's lives. Arelith DM's, seemingly both because of a hostile culture and a lack of time due to the number of reports they have to interact with, barely do this at all. Instead they only take any action in character during either a) events that are mostly self contained or at most effect things in the module for a couple weeks, or b) as a thinly veiled rules-smackdown applied when PC behavior crosses a certain threshold of either annoying or 'out of character'.


AS AN ASIDE: I think a lot of people saying that "social RP has no conflict" are just ignoring that interpersonal conflict is a thing that exists and plenty of stories take place entirely in that context. Like, for example, inviting your girlfriend to your family for christmas but making her pretend to be your roommate and also an orphan because you aren't out to your parents, to use the plot from Kristen Stewart's latest film. I'm glad that the target was narrowed down to "clique-based reactionary OOC bullying by people who get very upset if you decide to set up in their toybox"

[-XXX-]

In my experience, DMs or Devs tend not to have that much of a feel for what's going on RP-wise in settlements when compared to the players actually playing in them .. nor should they really be expected to given their other voluntary duties.

I really don't think that is a requirement.
Having an entire settlement trying to figure out how to meet the eccentric demands of their detached sovereign sounds like a very fun proposition to me!


p.s.: also imagine what would have happened should the nonsensical demands of two sovereigns collide!

[torugor]

Ok guys,
Yesterday even in the heat of this discussion, i got a real bad experience ingame and i would like to bring up in this discussion as it is the clear example of everything that is being said here. And it is recent.
Wont say names here or details because those i sent to the DM team.


But basically i was sitting iddly in a small city waiting for my death injuries to heal when people came and told me to leave.
So i asked why i was supposed to leave and they said they should give me no explanation.
So i asked to see administration of the place to talk it through and got attacked and killed. The mob was of about 10 characters. Then my body was destroyed.

You know when a situation cant be solved by with talk on rpgs, it can be only solved with violence. This kind of behaviour only makes me want to get a higher group and go on hunting each and everyone of them. And then after i know this guys will do the same. This far i have been keeping my character neutral and not acting openly but really...really...dont see how not to rp it with violence. So my policy will change for less talk (as it really dont work) more deaths. Its a pitty the game is forcing this into my character.

I am just talking it here because to me its an example of everything that is being said here. On how some people just dont bother rp anymore. They just took over places and decided you cant be there. And they force you to leave or die. They forget the place have npcs that might oppose them. They forget they are not the owners of the place. They became owners by numbers and by use of violence. No middle ground for discussion. And again i was doing nothing wrong in the place. I was just standing there being polite and helpful. So its a matter of using violence back.

[The GrumpyCat]

What if we pulled back leadership powers some, so the topmost rulers of Cordor, Brog, the new city etc were NPCs and generally indifferent to our lowly PCs and only brought out by the DMs for the most very important story moments.

I mean, to be fair this is slightly true of Cordor already, as others have pointed out.

There's an NPC leader ship that -with a few caveats, is basically content to let the pcs do whatever. But will step in if a) They act in a way that's tremendously against their interests and/or foolish, b) we want to stir the pot to make some fun!!

If I've taken one thing away from this topic it's that going forward - when I have more time to DM again - I need to run more plots using these guys to stir the pot up a bit. It's the sort of thing I love doing.

It is a bit of a delicate balence though. We do try to respect and not interfere with too much in the way of Player Plots, and some players (especualy when usually granted so much freedom) don't tend to like being hedged in.

But that's... just the way things are.

But of the settlments on the isle, only really Cordor and Andunor have the 'immedate' ovar arching NPC power structures (King Edward, Freth, Claddeth and... I think the Grakeslough Embessy for Greyport? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.)

For the other settlments, the leadershp is (currently) rather more... vauge and discorperated. Maybe going forward that's something that we should press to change?

[CorsicanDoge]

For the other settlments, the leadershp is (currently) rather more... vauge and discorperated. Maybe going forward that's something that we should press to change?

Freth, Grackstugh, the Hubmaster, and Claddath are especially neat because nobody's going to go "I'd like to speak to your manager" with them because how things are but they still look out for what makes Andunor, well, Andunor. These other cities could use something that would have some pull with a PC politician that isn't just a direct king or some kind of hook that permit the DMs to wriggle their way in easily.

It doesn't need to be a king but a [faction] with [important part of city/function/quality of life thing] and that'd be enough. In Andunor's case, you're adminstrating the district(a part of a city) on the greater house's behalf but they're so detached and degenerate nobody's talking to them.

Although that said, everybody's welcome to talk to the Sharp's manager. Claddaths are known for excellent customer service.

[CNS]

For Cordor perhaps its time for an expansion.

A nice big temple to some good civic life gods and on the other side of the street a nice big temple that covers some of the evil aligned but generally accepted in civilised lands gods.

I don't know enough of whats happening/the racial lore for how to apply this across the racial focused settlements so I'll leave them but other ideas might be:

Cordor - Powerful Banite public figure supported by elements of the nobility sponsored by the Queen.

New Guld - An established Theives guild that runs the docks or something similar.

Both/either - A not capital E evil but greedy and potentially corrupt merchant guild that represents the interests of trade, perhaps very Amnian focused for Cordor.

Cordor - An Amnian overseer, I don't know the exact state of relations or the relationship at the moment but it doesn't take much storytelling to strengthen the bonds either through force, choice or cirumstance and now theres a much stronger Armnian presence in the city to look after their interests, in support of the king of course.

Anywhere - Due to financial pressures the city/town has allowed a Thayvian enclave.

Farmers collective - Landowners and smallholders have banded together to ensure their interests are not ignored in favour of all those adventurers. Don't forget, without their hard work you'd all starve.

I'm sure people more creative than me can come up with hundreds more, but the point is instead of a singular point of top down authority that points in one direction, any real town or city would have multiple pointing in many different directions, some aligned with what the current PC's in any place want and some opposed.

If we give them a presence, make it clear their position/where their power comes from and show it in the setting (buildings, NPC guards/supporters etc) it gives a better canvas for PC's to play off and not only that but it gives DM's ways to stir things and enter the playing field more easily without having to know the ins and outs of everyting.

Even better would be to have mini-citizen membership to some or all of these, with each side having some kind of elected (an OOC nod to us as players more than anything IC) PC leader/deputy.

[Flower Power]

RIP Gouge's inbox but I have a weigh in for this too - isn't that first part already the case?

Cordor's chancellor answers to King Edward, Brogendenstein's Thane to the Dwarven King, Myon the Elven, etc
There is a higher NPC authority in the settlements

Cordor is the only settlement where the PC ruler is beholden to a higher power.
Myon is autonomous and independent from Evermeet, ruled by its own monarch, and there is no singular overarching dwarven hegemony in the setting that could claim ownership over Brogendenstein - it's its own holdfast.

Huh, I coulda sworn that there was something about a mainland dwarf kingdom having some say over Brog and that's why the title is Thane (as in, they're granted land by a king) and there was a Myon royal line that the Coronal represents? I could be way off with these but it was my understanding that's why settlements had the titles they did.

Brogendenstein is ruled by a thane because it used to be ruled by a King (Belrun), not of some mainland fortress but of Brogendenstein itself, but they ceased with the tradition of just being regents and usurped the throne for themselves ages ago.

Myon was originally an outpost of Evermeet's, but the Queen of Evermeet granted it independence and autonomy like, 2 centuries ago IG. "Coronal" is just the fancy elf term for an elected nonhereditary monarch.

[Petrifictus]

In conflict I also wish people would be more willing to practice capture/prison RP, make trials, etc. than just taking quick easy route by simply killbashing their opponents with few words and move on.

Things like that provide lot of RP and I remember how much fun it was as Wotan to work with the trial as accuser.
Would not mind putting Karstaag behind the bars temporary if he got plenty of RP often from it or getting a trial.

[Ebonstar]

For Cordor perhaps its time for an expansion.

A nice big temple to some good civic life gods and on the other side of the street a nice big temple that covers some of the evil aligned but generally accepted in civilised lands gods.

I don't know enough of whats happening/the racial lore for how to apply this across the racial focused settlements so I'll leave them but other ideas might be:

Cordor - Powerful Banite public figure supported by elements of the nobility sponsored by the Queen.

New Guld - An established Theives guild that runs the docks or something similar.

Both/either - A not capital E evil but greedy and potentially corrupt merchant guild that represents the interests of trade, perhaps very Amnian focused for Cordor.

Cordor - An Amnian overseer, I don't know the exact state of relations or the relationship at the moment but it doesn't take much storytelling to strengthen the bonds either through force, choice or cirumstance and now theres a much stronger Armnian presence in the city to look after their interests, in support of the king of course.

Anywhere - Due to financial pressures the city/town has allowed a Thayvian enclave.

Farmers collective - Landowners and smallholders have banded together to ensure their interests are not ignored in favour of all those adventurers. Don't forget, without their hard work you'd all starve.

I'm sure people more creative than me can come up with hundreds more, but the point is instead of a singular point of top down authority that points in one direction, any real town or city would have multiple pointing in many different directions, some aligned with what the current PC's in any place want and some opposed.

If we give them a presence, make it clear their position/where their power comes from and show it in the setting (buildings, NPC guards/supporters etc) it gives a better canvas for PC's to play off and not only that but it gives DM's ways to stir things and enter the playing field more easily without having to know the ins and outs of everyting.

Even better would be to have mini-citizen membership to some or all of these, with each side having some kind of elected (an OOC nod to us as players more than anything IC) PC leader/deputy.

uh hard pass sorry, open evil evil is in Minmir and Sencliff, my full two cents below

[Ebonstar]

I think the major problem "evil "folk have on the surface is quite simple.

Cordor is mostly good and neutral diety wise. Which is perfect as the main starting place for both new players and old.

The Term "aggressively evil" was used and that is where the big problem rears its head. Even in novels and PnP unless you are in a purely evil Bastion (Zhentil Keep or Thay) you might find merchants with trade ties, but they wont be walking about with bald heads in red robes speaking of world domination, or in Full Plate Black and Green trim, with an Absurd Black Gauntlet. They would be dressed and present themselves more to fit in and get the feel of the places they are assigned to be persay.

The problem for Evil is when you have a player who makes a banite, and his first action is to assume the colors and style of a banite and then lands in Cordor yelling Fear the Black Hand!

This is also with chosing the Skull Mask for your helm, the sigil of Cyric for your cloak etc, all makes people go hmmm might be an evil dude right there.

Same with those who want to be for the Furies Talos Umberlee etc.

First minutes in and you are outed as an evil character, which doesnt go well in the overreaching good Cordor. Word spreads now in a day and every settlement on the surface except where you would be accepted, knows who you are and you are on the radar.

your chances of being a subtle evil is gone, and what happens? Well according to many posts before this, you are headed to live and play in Andunor where you can preach to your Banite hearts content or similar.

This is the Aggressive style that was mentioned, I believe and is rather simple to fix.

Ive played evil over the years both above and below, played good as well and played dead center in between.

People often forget that being evil isnt always praising Bane or Cyric or whomever and eating babies and raising undead hordes. it could simply be having zero guilt when killing within a private self kept code.

It could be creating a network and selling information to the highest bidder, not caring if that is a Paladin of Tyr or a Mindflayer from the UD.

Subtle and nuanced evil can function on the surface or below, its not that the sandbox is stagnant, its the style of trying to build inside it that has lost its imagination.

Evil that thrives on the surface just isnt in your face every six seconds.

[-XXX-]

uh hard pass sorry, evil has its bastion in Minmir on the surface and its smugglers on Sencliff, my two cents

That's like... 2 places out of 13.
For a forgotten realms setting to work, the ratio needs to be more evened out.
Evil is ever present in the Forgotten Realms. On Arelith it's being instantly squashed by an overwhelming force of PCs.

Regardless of the IG power balance, I do not believe that this is accurately representing a Forgotten Realms setting:
Just look at the prevailing IG worships - there's plenty of characters who pay homage to the Triad, Lathander, Helm, and some of the goodly aligned racial deities.
HOWEVER, people of Faerun DO worship evil gods - a farmer for example would pray not only to Lathander for safety and protection, but also to Talos in order to appease him enough not to send some catastrophe on his crops.
Along a similar vein a merchant or a traveler would not only pray to Tymora for luck but also to Beshaba to avoid misfortune.
Someone who's in love would not only pray to Sune, but might also consider a prayer to Bane in order to stay clear of hate and envy...
etc.

Pretty much the only overtly evil deity that the people of Arelith somewhat acknowledge ATM is Umberlee. All other evil faiths seem to be met with extreme adversity, which is rather "Unforgotten Realmslike"

[Griefmaker]

uh hard pass sorry, evil has its bastion in Minmir on the surface and its smugglers on Sencliff, my two cents

Regardless of the IG power balance, I do not believe that this is accurately representing a Forgotten Realms setting:
Just look at the prevailing IG worships - there's plenty of characters who pay homage to the Triad, Lathander, Helm, and some of the goodly aligned racial deities.
HOWEVER, people of Faerun DO worship evil gods - a farmer for example would pray not only to Lathander for safety and protection, but also to Talos in order to appease him enough not to send some catastrophe on his crops.
Along a similar vein a merchant or a traveler would not only pray to Tymora for luck but also to Beshaba to avoid misfortune.
Someone who's in love would not only pray to Sune, but might also consider a prayer to Bane in order to stay clear of hate and envy...
etc.

Pretty much the only overtly evil deity that the people of Arelith somewhat acknowledge ATM is Umberlee. All other evil faiths seem to be met with extreme adversity, which is rather "Unforgotten Realmslike"

This is one thing that I constantly see others forgetting about and I like to see others mention it. 99% of the people in FR pray to multiple gods, both good and evil and many others who are neutral. They pray to be blessed, they pray for aid, they pray to be ignored, they pray to hope something bad will happen to another, they pray to hope something good will happen to another, they pray for luck, they pray for rain, etc. And these prayers usually go to the god whose portfolio includes what their prayer is for. And they do so often!

I think it would be far more interesting to have Cordor or maybe new Guldorand or someplace with all three "flavors" of alignment distinctly represented, possibly even something as simple as three temples: one dedicated to the evils gods, one to the good gods, and one to the neutral gods...or something like that.

Perhaps even go through and redesign it a little bit to have districts of its own, kind of like Andunor, with each being more akin to a bastion of that alignment...yet all three having to work together in some fashion, because it is not as if King Edward will allow one district to declare war openly on another and let fighting happen in the streets.

From there, maybe NPCs can react differently, or "evil" areas could have things like more houses of vice, where "good" aligned places will be more about free health clinics or whatever, and so on.

Not sure, I am kind of tired and just sort of spitballing random nuggets of wisdom and brilliance from which all may feast upon and know joy...or some BS like that

[Royal Blood]

I think what ruins the idea of praying to multiple faiths is that some of the faiths go so hard to evil I don't know if there's any way to really make peace with it.

for example if you pray to an evil Faith you're not just somebody with a different set of ideologies you're raising the undead or summoning demons and devils. Like, how do you deal with such extremes? this is specifically a problem on the server not like forgotten realms lore in general. Like I totally understand why a farmer might pray to an evil deity but would that farmer still pray to said deity if it's followers or running around rampaging with demons and devils? maybe out of fear, but the majority of the players are heroes not farmers so to expect the same is not a good example


So, I think that's the downfall. I like that the queen is a banite in Cordor. But she isn't running through the streets summoning demons and devils or raising undead period at least not that we know of O: