CLOK BBS

There's been some discussion on the matters of alternative factions, CvC, and "evil" characters (and relatedly, town banishment) recently. The TL;DR is that we are going to be tamping down on support for all these things. The intent is to:
- Better foster a more cohesive community
- Allow for more streamlined development of both mechanics and events
- Make banishment meaningful and act as an actual deterrent to disruptive character behavior

1. On the general idea of having multiple fully-supported factions (facilities, trainers, guild access, shops, NPCs, events, etc).

The biggest issue with multiple fully-supported factions that has been apparent since it first became a thing in early CLOK is that it splits up the community. I saw this in the previous MUD I had played as more and more fully-featured towns were opened and the palyerbase fractured and spread out into small isolated communities that more or less wanted nothing to do with each other. For reasons unknown, Past Rias figured it wouldn't be as bad in my own game if I just kept it under tight control. To be fair, the additional factions in CLOK happened more organically as events were happening despite no initial plans to have them result in actual major player-joinable factions. In any case, I won't ramble further on this specific point as I've already done so plenty in the past.

Having multiple fully-supported factions also multiplies the required development, maintenance, and event effort from staff, all for disproportionate player-facing results - typically on behalf of one or two players that could be considered "regularly active" in these alternative factions. This in turn can often lead to resentment: If we do something for faction A, we hear "What about us in Faction B?" We do something for Faction B, and we'll get "What about us in Faction A?" Or "Why are you spending time on that faction when hardly anyone actually plays it?"

Running events in a setting with multiple individual factions is pretty much the worst, because you know right off the bat that there will be people in factions not specifically concerned with the event that won't care about them at all (and again, will resent staff effort being spent on them). There's also the goofiness of bending over backwards to try and always do events out in some neutral patch of ground in the wilderness for the sake of inclusiveness, instead of in the actual settlement where it would make far more sense to take place.

Something that might be less obvious is that running events with alternative factions that have some PCs involved can be tough, because it often involves waiting on those PCs to be around or to take a hook, potentially providing them with special tools or resources to participate in the event, etc. A lot of planned NPC action/events on the part of various factions have ended up just not happening because of stuff like this. There's a big risk of the GM planning the event running out of steam because it can be such a hassle sometimes to get all the stars to align just right. NOTE: This is not saying that specific players are at fault! Just that the logistics involved become more complicated when GMs want to try and rope in additional actual people (players) instead of just spawning and controlling a bunch of NPCs themselves.

Another issue of having multiple fully-supported player-joinable factions is that they are essentially viewed as safety nets for problematic behavior. Who cares if Faction A doesn't like what I'm doing? If they give me guff or banish me, I'll just move to Faction B. And if Faction B won't let me do what I want then fine, I'll burn that bridge as I move to Faction C. This in turn can potentially lead to a sense of entitlement, with players assuming they will always have a fully supported gameplay experience regardless of their character's behavior because they assume they'll always be given another faction/settlement to fall back on. It's a roundabout way of encouraging disruptive behavior due to a lack of meaningful consequence.

Yet another issue is the "grass is always greener" effect: A player may be feeling a bit bored with the status quo and decide hey, I'm going to have my character join a different faction now or "go evil" (or create a new character for that purpose) just to try and have some fresh experiences. This harms the community the player was previously a part of by removing them from it and, frankly, usually results in the player expressing regret about the decision later.

At the end of the day, I don't think this stuff is necessarily *insurmountable* (even if I have yet to see an example of it being pulled off particularly well). There may be ways to make the game work satisfactorily with multiple factions. But I honestly just don't want to do that. I don't want to "hire" and manage a huge number of staff to try and make that happen. I don't want the game to feel like a sprawling world with multiple towns and factions one can choose from and bounce between. I want the sense of scale and community in the game to be small, cozy, and unified. Small-town-like. I want a well-developed single town and a manageable number of associated well-fleshed-out NPCs that the playerbase can form meaningful opinions of and relationships with. I want to be able to focus and do things well and meaningfully with a single unified community. Quality over quantity.

2. On the support of "Evil" (and/or disruptive or hostile) characters, CvC, and Corvus

We've had some fun "evil" or at least "typically hostile to the main/default faction" characters in CLOK, helping drive interesting events and substantive conflict. I don't think touting equal support for this kind of thing as an available alternative and acceptable character path/playstyle is good for the game, though. There's the obvious issue of your average player not handling the playing of an "evil" character well, and assuming it just means being as generally offensive, disruptive, and murder-y as possible. The idea that there's an Evil Faction out there just waiting to embrace these types of characters, even if mistaken, greatly exacerbates this issue.

While there has absolutely been some fun and well-executed CvC in CLOK's history (though this will be contested by some as it's always going to be a controversial issue), more often than not it has gone poorly. It requires a lot of staff effort observing, investigating, and attempting to moderate, and even with moderation action it typically leaves at least one party upset, if not both.

I don't want to forbid CvC completely or put in a bunch of anti-CvC mechanics, but I do want to remove things that give a feeling of overall wide CvC encouragement as a primary part of the game. (I still think there's potential for designated CvC contested zones, still holding on to that dream! We'll see.)

Behavior that results in banishment from Shadgard (the main faction/town) is supposed to be a *bad* thing, not treated as an effective (or even required) gateway or stepping stone to joining a different faction. Having the Evil Faction out there makes players assume that banishment is no big deal, as the character can just join the evil faction if they get banished and they'll still have every comfort and convenience they could ever need to continue playing the game normally. That might arguably be a good thing if CLOK was made from the ground up to be a split good-versus-evil faction conflict game, but it wasn't.

Corvus was a fluke.

The original intent for Corvus by its creator, Landion, was as a set of connected combat zones full of spooky nethrim, and potentially a reocurring antagonist NPC named Sceptus who was based there. Due to unrelated player character events that were ongoing at the time, we thought: Hey, maybe a character or two that are well on their way to getting kicked out of Shadgard for their developing extreme eeeevilness could squat in these areas, neutral with the mobs there, so they have a place to chill. After all, we had done a similar type of thing before, for anyone who remembers Jaren, our first player-character antagonist who was too evil to live in Shadgard. This snowballed into Corvus becoming a more fully-featured "town", but even then it still had an event arc and potential ending: The Corvus Outpost was eventually besieged, the gates breached, the evil Sceptus was defeated, hooray! But we thought, hrm, having some baddies in a baddie town was kind of fun. Maybe we'll keep it going and see what happens. And it snowballed more, and became even more full-featured, and it even was a starting town choice for new characters for a while, no questions asked. In retrospect, I think after that siege and defeat of Sceptus it should have ended up close to the original intent: a bunch of nethrim-infested outpost combat zones, and potentially a few "evil" characters could hang out with a measure of safety in there, but not be a fully-featured alternative faction and settlement.

Anyway, all this is to say that we won't be continuing to offer Corvus (or other factions) as alternative factions available to player characters. Being kicked out of Shadgard is no longer going to be a step on one's way to joining a new faction, but rather actually a bad thing as it should be: Left to fend for oneself out in the unforgiving Lost Lands wilderness. Corvus is not accepting new applicants and will continue to attack approaching foreigners on sight. Mistral Lake remains thoroughly (and mysteriously) closed off and silent to any who approach. Haiban remains a smoldering crater.

Characters already in Corvus aren't being kicked out, but the closure of access to the Citadel is part one of the Outpost's overall player character support being toned down. We're not sure yet to what degree we're going to tone these things down. For the time being, Corvites should be considered largely on their own when coming up with how they spend their time and find entertainment playing their Corvites. Frankly, this shouldn't feel new: that's how Corvus has been pretty much since the above-mentioned siege back in ... 2012, wow. This isn't to say Corvus will go inactive as a faction. I have plans for it to continue getting more uppity. But it will be treated by staff pretty much as an NPC faction and while we're not against looping in player characters if they happen to be around, we're not going to wait on them or work around them either when we want something to happen, and we're not going to try to make it keep up as a fully-featured mirror of Shadgard when it comes to features, facilities, event availability and all that.

==========

So, ultimately: Shadgard is the main game. Getting a character banished from Shadgard is to have that character be cut off from a lot of what the game offers, without equivalent fallbacks provided. Getting banished should be avoided (which is a weird thing to feel needs saying). We're not going to make and maintain a new faction (or outpost, or guild) for every alternative idea or stylistic leaning players might have. We're a small hobby passion project, and we need to focus. Threat of banishment should be a meaningful tool that keeps character behavior at least somewhat in line.

This isn't to say everyone needs be best friends and holding hands in Shadgard. Rivalries can (and do) exist within Shadgard. Disgruntled citizens can (and do) exist in Shadgard. People with a darker/spookier/eeeeevil-er bent can (and do) exist within Shadgard.

All this actually highlights another unfortunate result of having an "Evil Faction" available - it makes people assume Shadgard is "the Good Faction" and that everyone who calls Shadgard home are all supposed to be virtuous and morally upright heroes of righteousness who adhere to the highest standards of ethics and pure good goodly pureness. Yuck.

Shadgard is not "Good". Yes, they expect people to have the basic level of decency and civility required to maintain a functioning society. But they're by no means a bastion of moral superiority and righteousness. It's a rough and gritty survival town in a crapsack post-apocalyptic world. There's corruption in the government. There's brutal vigilante "justice". The Church of Light exists there, sure, but they're a niche minority. Churchfolk are very nice and very helpful people, so they tend to be highly valued in the community (that'll happen when you go out of your way to be helpful), but they are not a representation of your average Shadgardian by any stretch of the word.

Shadgardians aren't against nether-corruption and resen-infestation and (most) canim out of some desire to fight a righteous holy war against the forces of evil, they're just trying to somehow survive in this awful environment without losing their (physical) humanity to infestation or nether-corruption or the like. That's not moral or righteous Goodness, that's basic survival instinct. And basic, primal survival instinct can push people to be scary and dark and ruthless, too, even if they're not moustache-twistingly "evil". You're going to find that kind of thing in Shadgard, everywhere from the citizenry to the Town Council.

Players shouldn't feel like their darker character has no place in Shadgard, because Shadgard isn't a capital-G Good Town. If someone has a character that they absolutely insist is so incredibly evil that they could never possibly be accepted in a place like Shadgard, or they want them to be banished to get that extra edge to them, then feel free to get them banished. Just know that the character will then have to be played as an unsupported character who has been banished from the only society available. It's essentially opting in to an unsupported hard mode that is not intended to be equally viable. And it's going to be even tougher now with the Mighty Winter weather, not to mention how that's going to start pushing other desperate NPCs out there to start taking over and squatting in any available wilderness shelter sites themselves!

Lastly: Yes, I admit that I did allude to and begin adding more support for Corvus as a player character town after reviving CLOK. Further thought and various observations and experiences since then have caused me to change my mind. My apologies to those who were excited about that stuff.

So for those players, including myself, who have gotten ourselves banned with the hopes of ending up at the outpost, will there be opportunity to potentially earn our way back into Shadgard? I was told by other players, who have sense apologized for it, that getting banned was one of the steps to make it into the outpost. Now that there's been a 180, is there a way to undo that damage? I very openly talked on a character about joining the outpost but if I had known this information last month I most certainly would have not made any of those choices.
I'm curious if the character I made is destined for the shelf now or if a bit of a redemption story is possible.

Not sure if people were intending to say if getting banned was a requirement. It's more expect to probably be thrown out at some point if you're making intentions to join Corvus. Considering some of the plans they had, would one really keep around someone who seek's the current town's destruction? Also well, at some point you would need to be kicked out for the proper settlement realignment.

Though no one really knew what that would end up involving. The thought process would probably be that severing ties with the current settlement meant you would least likely backstab the outpost? That wouldn't necessarily involve getting thrown out of town. But it's easy to see why people would think that would be the easiest approach. I will admit some of us did make the interpretation that it did show that, so we didn't blink at anything being wrong there.

Though, as long as you haven't made pacts with celestial nethric horrors, don't have a list of murdered civilians that stretch an entire book (And haven't fed their souls to said horror), and its sequel, and make an effort to redeem yourself in people you roleplay with? I don't see why that wouldn't be possible.

Is there any chance with this change that we get a rollback on the 'no account can have both active Shadgardian and Corvite on their account' ruling? It's not like there will be any plotlines for them to be spying on/taking advantage of for the most part

Kunren wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 1:53 pm Is there any chance with this change that we get a rollback on the 'no account can have both active Shadgardian and Corvite on their account' ruling? It's not like there will be any plotlines for them to be spying on/taking advantage of for the most part

I'd also like to request that we have our remaining shelving timers lifted, too, if that hasn't been done already. I had to shelve even inactive/neutral characters to play a Corvite and I don't think it's even been a week yet.

This is probably the best change for all concerned.

Shadgard is a neat town with nice stuff and I figure the people who'd like to stay in it won't do stuff that's super evil or even close to it, (although stealing is not evil within itself and I'd expect that those who are into that will have more free reign over that action considering that's considered mostly all right.)

On the oOOC side of things, I'm glad to see it mainly because those who work hard to keep Clok going will have something to put a good amount of their focus on. (not that I'm not sad that Corvus isn't gonna get the same treatment but I really only have one Corvite that I don't really know what to do with.)

I appreciate your reasoning and I won't ask for the same shelf timing and such the others are asking because I'm thinking 89% chance it's gonna be a no answer.

Q: Will characters be able to earn their way back into Shadgard if they've been banished?
A: This is going to depend on a lot of different factors, but most importantly the severity of the action that got the character banished in the first place. In any case, it's going to be on the banished character to try and figure out how they might prove themselves and earn their way back in. Shadgard isn't going out of their way to present planned paths to redemption for people who got kicked out for what Shadgard considers good reason. There are by no means any guarantees. Banishment doesn't have much of a bite if people can just routinely get themselves un-banished again.

Q: Is the active character faction restriction going to be removed, so people with a Corvus character can also have a non-Corvus character active at the same time?
A: As of now that restriction has been lifted, but I reserve the right to re-implement it again if things get goofy, or on a case-by-case basis for individuals that I feel it may still be necessary for.

Q: If we just recently shelved a character in order to unshelve a Corvite right before all this was announced, can we get the former character un-shelved again early?
A: Sure. Use the REPORT command in-game and let us know the name of the shelved character you want unshelved and we'll get to it as soon as we can.

Q: So wait, is Corvus closed completely to player characters now?
A: No, only the Citadel portion of the outpost is closed to player characters, and part of a connected area that led to the Citadel. The shops and whatnot outside the Citadel are all still available to Corvite PCs at this time.

Q: Can I still get a new character into Corvus then if I just RP it well enough?
A: No, Corvus is not taking any new PC recruits for any reason whatsoever. It's just that existing Corvite player characters are not getting kicked out and still have some town facilities available to them.

Q: For those of us who have Corvite characters, what about access to our banks and lockers that were within the Citadel?
A: Those have been moved to the old storehouse in the northeast courtyard. A sign by the Citadel door mentions this.

Q: What about access to a Twilight Eye registrar and aura selection that was within the Citadel?
A: That's been moved to the old curio building in the southeast courtyard. A sign by the Citadel door mentions this.

Q: What about access to mail that was within the Citadel?
A: Oops. I knew I'd forget something. I'll find a spot for that. Do note however that Shadgard and Corvus no longer deliver mail to one another (it was pretty goofy that they ever did) so it's only for sending things to other locals.

Q: What's going to happen with the Claw of Shar guild?
A: There's a good chance they'll end up relocating, and no longer be so intimately tied to Corvus and the direction it's going. While it would by no means be a "town" of its own, the alternate location could serve as a decently safe basic home base for Claw members who don't have anywhere else to go (or just don't want to stay in Corvus). Stay tuned.

Q: What's going to happen with the Harbingers of Aranas guild?
A: I'm working on restoring their Temple (which is not in Corvus) and their abilities. They won't be taking on any new members, though. Same as above, their guild area would be a serviceable (albeit very limited) home base for members who don't have anywhere else to go or just don't want to stay in Corvus. It may also be siege-able, so be prepared to ward off invasions if the enemies of the Harbingers get it in their heads to band together and attack the Temple!

I have yet to log in and play, but this has been brought to my attention and I wish to reserve judgment until I will actually log in and see how things are going, only mentioning that there is little to no judgment on my part on this case.
yes, I was very excited and happy upon hearing a revival of this will be happening, and I am a little bit disheartened when hearing that things will not be going into this dirrection. Back when i made my character and thought to pursue a certain route, corvus was not a milestone, but something which would have been happening certainly. now, however, I do not know how to feel about this. this post and decision gives me much food for thought in the dirrection of my main character. will such a character be worth playing or not? I think that is a question only myself should answer at the end of the day.
I understand this decision and I am both happy and sad hearing of it, as many of my plans went awry now. but I consider an ending, or an apparent ending, the mere seed of a newer beginning.

A genuine curiosity: is there a reason why harbingers don't accept members anymore? Will claws still do?

At first, I ddin't know what to think on it all.

But the more I think on it, the more I vibe with it. The game's always a more cohesive, active, enthusiastic thing when the community's as little divided as possible.

Plus, all of the concerns that I could've possibly had have already been explaind away. So as far as I'm concerned? Sweet. Cool. Eager for the future, as always.

If I have any specific questions myself, or if I hear them asked regularly, I'll be sure to drop them here. But so far as I see it, I can both see the appeal, see the logic, and vibe with the idea moving forward.

Q: Why won't Harbingers be recruiting anymore?
A: Harbingers as a guild/character type give off strong signals of aggressive CvC focus and making trouble for trouble's sake, which are things we're trying to steer general player focus away from.

Q: What about Claw of Shar then?
A: While some might feel Claw of Shar give off similar signals as above since they're known to be assassins, I'd say they're much less so. They could easily be viewed similarly to Mercenaries as more impartial contract killers that can be pointed at the various nasties out there just as much as anything else. Jury's still out on how they will go forward when it comes to recruiting. They've got some other things to figure out first.

Q: Won't it be weird having all these people with strongly differing ideals and opinions all stuck living in the same town with each other?
A: Yes! Weird and wonderful. I consider this a positive, not a negative. Imagine actually being in the same place as people who think differently than your character, interacting with them, sharing ideas, debating, learning new perspectives, getting into arguments, and overall interacting with one another in the same space. Imagine a sorcerer arguing that they should be able to channel sorcery within town at a heated Town Hall meeting, rather than them just being dismissed with "go join Corvus if you want to do that." This sounds a lot more interesting and interactive and encouraging of RP and building relationships (whether good or bad, they're still meaningful) than isolating people according to their personal ideals and tastes, and having the majority of exchange of conflicting ideas be in the form of faceless remote arguments and insults and threats over the ESP pendants.

Rare reply from Marauder time. Let me address the gore-splattered elephant in the room as even-handedly as I can.

The issue of not allowing people to play with the same things even if they get banished from Shadgard is just that. It kills roleplay by way of forcing people who want to create meaningful conflict to pick between being able to play the game on par with other players or not having access to most facilities and will likely encourage some players to bully the now-vulnerable banished simply because they're now unable to play their characters to their fullest (assuming they don't have Corvus access, obviously). They no longer have access to the means to without a proxy to do all of it for them. Sharpened weapons are a huge mechanical bonus. Being able to repair things is a huge mechanical bonus. Having access to a bank is a huge mechanical bonus. Morale is a huge mechanical bonus which you can no longer gain through most common means. Being able to buy weapons that don't punish you for using them is a huge mechanical bonus. Being able to see when a locksmith is in town and go to them and have them open lockboxes is a huge mechanical bonus. Access to most skill and ability trainers is a titanic mechanical bonus. Vice versa. You should consider readding the deletion option for characters banished from Shadgard, or at least a way to permanently detach them from an account, because for some that will be the only closure option for that banished character once they get fed up with not having any of the same amenities or basic abilities the standard PC does.

CvC is not as simple as combat, either. "character versus character" occurs on the regular because it's any antagonistic action or words towards another player character. It's not limited to theft or combat. Trying to get smiths to ignore somebody because you saw them channeling sorcery? Yeah, you're engaging in CvC. Big time, because you're attempting to block somebody else's character from accessing a service, which is equivalent to trying to an attempt to initiate a lite banishment from Shadgard, which as said before, is equivalent to a permanent character death.

To address the other elephant; people getting upset at legitimate situations of CvC will always happen, just as there will always be a problem player at some point causing chaos via CvC. I don't see the point in punishing everyone for the actions of others, especially if the people you're punishing by proxy are being punished for adding to roleplay instead of taking away from it.

All this does is create a situation where most are going to try to be on their best behavior to avoid effectively losing the right to play their character which will limit the amount of personalities people can play as well as kinda just... nuke most conflict RP from orbit unless it is 100% confirmed that you cannot be banished from Shadgard for conflict RP outside of Shadgard.

Marauder wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2025 2:17 am Rare reply from Marauder time. Let me address the gore-splattered elephant in the room as even-handedly as I can.

The issue of not allowing people to play with the same things even if they get banished from Shadgard is just that. It kills roleplay by way of forcing people who want to create meaningful conflict to pick between being able to play the game on par with other players or not having access to most facilities and will likely encourage some players to bully the now-vulnerable banished simply because they're now unable to play their characters to their fullest (assuming they don't have Corvus access, obviously). They no longer have access to the means to without a proxy to do all of it for them. Sharpened weapons are a huge mechanical bonus. Being able to repair things is a huge mechanical bonus. Having access to a bank is a huge mechanical bonus. Morale is a huge mechanical bonus which you can no longer gain through most common means. Being able to buy weapons that don't punish you for using them is a huge mechanical bonus. Being able to see when a locksmith is in town and go to them and have them open lockboxes is a huge mechanical bonus. Access to most skill and ability trainers is a titanic mechanical bonus. Vice versa. You should consider readding the deletion option for characters banished from Shadgard, or at least a way to permanently detach them from an account, because for some that will be the only closure option for that banished character once they get fed up with not having any of the same amenities or basic abilities the standard PC does.

I was banished from Shadgard in COGG for a real, well roleplayed on all sides, and reasonable reason. I then roleplayed, and roughed it, and generally moped, for several months, before I was let back in. Granted, I had friends to make it a little easier, but all in all, I made it work. It was hard, but I knew it was hard, so I only really complained as a joke, or as a light bit of teasing. If people find this to not be the kind of roleplay they want to do, that's fine. They can just shelve. But I really would encourage people not to. There is beauty in roleplaying the struggle. It lets you know your character at their darkest, lowest points, and hopefully, lets you know them at their highest points, afterword, if they manage to get back in.

Banishment from town being harsh is the point. It has little weight if someone can just bounce to the next town with all the same conveniences and comforts. I don't think it's unreasonable for part of a character's RP in this setting to be "What level of restraint am I willing to maintain in order to avoid being banished from society and its associated benefits?" It's important to note that most of what people have done in the past to get kicked out of Shadgard would get them kicked out of other towns as well. Corvus isn't any more okay with residents going around murdering their fellow residents than Shadgard is, which is what the majority of banishment instances have been in response to. I don't think that kind of thing is what we need to set the bar to for meaningful CvC RP.

There's plenty of opportunity for conflict RP and CvC without going to such specific extremes of actions that would get a character kicked out of a town. I don't see this resulting in any significant shift in player character behavior. Of all the incidents resulting in banishment from town that have happened, I can think of three that *weren't* cases of the player deliberately going to extremes to try and get their character banished from Shadgard on purpose, in order to try and prove themselves worthy of joining Corvus. Of these exceptions, all of them had potential for the banished to work their way back in with some effort.

CvC matters aside, the other towns were always something of a trap for players at the expense of dividing the playerbase. I can absolutely get how the idea of them is fun and enticing. But people would pack their bags and move to Mistral or Corvus (or one of the hamlets), only to find that they were more or less ghost towns, and they'd have to hang around Shadgard (or Shadgardians) anyway in order to feel involved in RP or events because that's where people actually were. They'd want more development or event attention for their own little isolated slice of the world, there'd be resentment over GM effort being spent on a small fraction of the playerbase, there'd be GM/development burnout over having to multiply their efforts for said fractions, there'd be event exhaustion (on the GM side) and apathy (on the player side) because events wouldn't be equally applicable to every individual community ... see the original post in this thread.

At the very least, it'll be interesting to see how things go. If this ends up resulting in the game feeling objectively worse overall, we can always course correct.

I've been mulling over this for a bit and I think, when all's said in done, this is a good choice for the health of the game going forward. However, that's not to say I'm not aiming to be sensitive to some of the concerns presented, primarily for those that have long since relied on ability and skill trainers being in other locations external to Shadgard prior to CLOK 2.0's revival, but also for those interested in engaging in rewarding conflict RP through more antagonistic characters.

When it comes to being banished from a town, I do agree that should come with heavy consequences and the weight of those actions should feel as crushing as they may be freeing in other cases. I can't speak on the thought process of those that had aimed to join Corvus and committed actions explicitly for that purpose (especially as I also had my eyes on potentially finding a way into the town as well), but I suspect there might've been some misunderstandings that have lead to the current predicament.

That's not to say this can't be resolved on a character-by-character basis (I recall the experience Gorth had, actually, and that RP was really interesting to see play out over time), but - and I'll admit, I'm not quite AS sympathetic on this part - going into a character with the intention of pissing off a town enough to get kicked out before actually guaranteeing you'll find a home elsewhere is certainly a choice. Sucks it panned out the way it did, but I agree with Rias' line of reasoning as to wanting to tamper down on that sort of RP before it flourishes into something broader and more unwieldy. I'm not sure how exactly I'd have gone about trying to get into Corvus myself, let alone another faction, but a lot of the more current banishments from the perspective of someone on the outside look to be more instances of putting the cart before the horse, and unfortunately with some very regrettable downsides.

For those who jumped in a bit quicker before ensuring there was actually a definitive path in, it definitely sucks I know (especially with this winter), but I'd certainly still encourage trying to either find a way to RP around and through the situation or, if needed, perhaps shelving and starting anew may indeed be the better course of action, as bitter as it may be. I can't speak for everyone in that situation, I just hope that whatever's chosen ultimately leads to a lot of very valuable and interesting RP, and over time becomes rewarding enough to warrant sticking through whatever decision is chosen.

For those who've had characters living in Corvus for long periods of time or don't live within Shadgard for various reasons who might've relied on trainers and services from elsewhere, I'd certainly hope to see that the core mechanics can still be made available in some fashion as to not completely isolate those characters. Whatever the reasons might've been, CLOK 1.0 was a different game than CLOK 2.0, and having a lot of things from the first iteration not be made available would certainly suck for those expecting at least a little bit more to be available for characters that existed when those choices were more readily available (ie, Mistral Lake was open, Haiban wasn't a pile of rubble, etc.).

Regarding the future of conflict, CvC, and the overall idea of "Evil Characters", I'd still love to see more come up as antagonists, and I've tried to mull over ways in which I may be able to help foster the growth of good antagonists in the game (either attempting to be one or existing as an unfortunate recipient of conflict RP). Being a pain in the ass is easy and cheap, instigating rewarding conflict is hard for so many reasons. But, if it can be pulled off, I think it offers really good avenues for RP to flourish and once all's said and done, can be extraordinarily rewarding for all involved. Personally, I hope to see Shadgard get a little rougher and less "pristine" in its unwarranted reputation. Makes things more lively that way, I think ;)

Related to the above, I'm hoping to still see more of the antagonistic guilds play a role in the game (including Shar + Harbingers), and aren't closed off for good to new recruits. Just perhaps, maybe a bit of revisiting what that role should be within the intended game setting going forward.

Gorth wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2025 11:32 am I was banished from Shadgard in COGG for a real, well roleplayed on all sides, and reasonable reason. I then roleplayed, and roughed it, and generally moped, for several months, before I was let back in. Granted, I had friends to make it a little easier, but all in all, I made it work. It was hard, but I knew it was hard, so I only really complained as a joke, or as a light bit of teasing. If people find this to not be the kind of roleplay they want to do, that's fine. They can just shelve. But I really would encourage people not to. There is beauty in roleplaying the struggle. It lets you know your character at their darkest, lowest points, and hopefully, lets you know them at their highest points, afterword, if they manage to get back in.

COGG had other towns and outposts you could buy resources in and get services from for a very long time. The problem here is you might as well delete their character for x days because that doesn't exist. You're banning them not only from the hub of RP, but from development of their character by kicking them out of Shadgard.

I think banishment from Shadgard as a whole needs to be removed if this is going to be the direction the game takes and those who deserve that kind of punishment can just get deleted, because it's a similar result.

Personally, I think it's grounds to quit the game if you have a character banished from Shadgard even if it's good reason and you've spent enough time working on them, because you will never get any of that back unless you worm your way back into Shadgard which isn't a guarantee. If it's a guarantee that after x days (maximum maybe two weeks), you're allowed back into Shadgard, it's less extreme because it's not a potentially permanent problem of "how do I get any RP, how do I get any items, how do I get abilities, how do I get new skills" et cetera. You aren't be blocked from the vast majority of the game for an unknown amount of time in this case.

But in the current case? Yes. Being banished from Shadgard ends up being a sentence of "make a new character or quit the game" unless you are otherwise guaranteed to be able to get your character's ability to function back.

Marauder wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2025 3:20 pm If it's a guarantee that after x days (maximum maybe two weeks), you're allowed back into Shadgard, it's less extreme because it's not a potentially permanent problem of "how do I get any RP, how do I get any items, how do I get abilities, how do I get new skills" et cetera. You aren't be blocked from the vast majority of the game for an unknown amount of time in this case.

Looking at this from the opposite perspective sounds like assuring players that no matter how disruptive and destructive and problematic their characters are, and how many times they do it, even if deliberately, they will always have the guarantee of being allowed back into the community that they caused problems for after a temporary time-out and with the freedom to continue this cycle without end. This is the kind of thing we *don't* want people feeling entitled to.

Out of curiosity, what kind of RP do you have in mind that hinges so fundamentally upon a character getting banished from town?

Rias wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2025 4:57 pm Looking at this from the opposite perspective sounds like assuring players that no matter how disruptive and destructive and problematic their characters are, and how many times they do it, even if deliberately, they will always have the guarantee of being allowed back into the community that they caused problems for after a temporary time-out and with the freedom to continue this cycle without end. This is the kind of thing we *don't* want people feeling entitled to.

Out of curiosity, what kind of RP do you have in mind that hinges so fundamentally upon a character getting banished from town?

I don't really have any such RP in mind, but the threat itself of being blocked from accessing skill learning, ability learning, items, pretty much any crafting, markets, most of the RP, riln storage, item storage and et cetera is a big one towards anybody who ever has to get involved in CvC or anything that might detriment Shadgard in any way and that's the problem. It's going to adversely effect RP because nobody wants to give up their character to banishment, even if, say, their character would get rightfully enraged by somebody pushing for it IC and then proceed to clock them in the face or vice versa. The moment anyone who has the power deems that "too destructive" is the moment they lose that character, in that sense.

The problem is not that they're being banished from Shadgard for good reason or not. The problem is that you are telling them to make a new character on doing so.

A little bit off topic from the previous curve of the discussion, but

Rias wrote: Tue Jan 14, 2025 4:31 pm Q: What's going to happen with the Claw of Shar guild?
A: There's a good chance they'll end up relocating, and no longer be so intimately tied to Corvus and the direction it's going. While it would by no means be a "town" of its own, the alternate location could serve as a decently safe basic home base for Claw members who don't have anywhere else to go (or just don't want to stay in Corvus). Stay tuned.

Will this mean characters part of the claws are still forbidden at all from coming back into shadgard by default, even if said characters have not made any dirrect threats or actions detrimenting the town proper, killing, or any other heinous acts?
I'm asking this just as a thing, I'm enthusiastically looking to the Stay tuned part, so there would be no rush for an answer for me :)

Marauder wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2025 5:22 pm

Rias wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2025 4:57 pm Looking at this from the opposite perspective sounds like assuring players that no matter how disruptive and destructive and problematic their characters are, and how many times they do it, even if deliberately, they will always have the guarantee of being allowed back into the community that they caused problems for after a temporary time-out and with the freedom to continue this cycle without end. This is the kind of thing we *don't* want people feeling entitled to.

Out of curiosity, what kind of RP do you have in mind that hinges so fundamentally upon a character getting banished from town?

I don't really have any such RP in mind, but the threat itself of being blocked from accessing skill learning, ability learning, items, pretty much any crafting, markets, most of the RP, riln storage, item storage and et cetera is a big one towards anybody who ever has to get involved in CvC or anything that might detriment Shadgard in any way and that's the problem. It's going to adversely effect RP because nobody wants to give up their character to banishment, even if, say, their character would get rightfully enraged by somebody pushing for it IC and then proceed to clock them in the face or vice versa. The moment anyone who has the power deems that "too destructive" is the moment they lose that character, in that sense.

Hi, guy who regularly involves himself in CVC situations that could possibly affect the town, the people, and it's safety.

Just wanted to chime in to say a few quick things to keep in mind, as well:

A. It's not easy to get banished unless you do something -really- bad and unforgiveable, like extremely showy and public displays to dark gods, brazen, unjustified murder, blood sacrifice-- very tabboo things. They're a quick way to get yoruself thrown out on your butt. But aside from this? It's not as easy as you might think.

B. We have a jailhouse. If people get rowdy-- too rowdy-- they'll get warned, then get jailed, then get threatened with banishment. I highly doubt that the town's just going to throw people out left and right over minor infractions-- not that I say that's what you're saying. But. I mean. They do know they're one of very few places that can maintain safety in this quarantine zone. They get that they can't be picky about the hands they use to keep the machine moving.

C. My character regularly confronts people in many ways other than flat out violent confrontation. He argues with people, he makes fun of people, he does lots of things that could be considered questionable or rude or CVC-like behavior under a certain lens. And he's not on his butt yet.

D. Every behavior has it's risks. But every action inevitably should have consequences, too, I think. IC especially. Elsewise people'll get way rowdier with no threat of banishment or ultimate consequence hanging over them whatsoever. They're undying.

There are stages to this type of thing. As a person who's been playing the game actively and seeing how potentially questionable situations which arise are handled and reacted to by players and NPCs alike, I can largely assume that it will continue to maintain a realistically reasonable course, even with this change in mind.

I mean, the only type of conflict RP that would get you tossed out of town would be ones where you'd be acting directly against Shadgard. And at that point, you know what you're getting yourself into moving forward. There's other ways of being considered villainous that can be directed at a few people, or the entire player community that wouldn't directly impact Shadgard itself. In fact, some things that might benefit it to probably some residents horror.

Maybe Shadgard goes straight into the "Not in my backyard" mindset with its residents. Someone decides to make a small group that routinely ransacks trade caravans going to other settlements, butchering all survivors. City turns a blind eye to it since they need the resources, and they aren't our people to worry about. Someone else starts a fencing ring of things sotlen out in the wilderness, selling it back to people. Can't do anything in settlement as the thefts happened outside of town. ETc.

If you wanted to play something with the mindset of a harbinger. That ship has sailed. The guild has been openned for a while, and hadn't had as many takers. And some people at times took it way too far. but trust me, there's ways to be a problem for people that doesn't involve throwing swords in the middle of town. And well, stuff happens out in the wilderness.

If you've reached the point where you've gotten yourself kicked out, and I can promise that I've seen cases of people working their way steadily up to it, chances are you deserved it. I've seen NPCs warn, post, and do everything except downright shoot a person, and no remorse equalled banishment because safety of the town and its citizens is paramount, not your character's feelings and justifications of doing something largely considered disruptive and harmful.
Sure, Cogg had other towns, but those towns did not align with a character's morals, so instead of taking the easy way out, they chose to rough it and continue to try to get back into the town that IS their home, where their friends live, and what ultimately, matters to them. If you are banished and you don't know what to do, you can do various things, including asking passersby or people who may be sympathetic, (or bribed), into helping. Turning hard riln into notes, having weapons taken in for repair, selling things at the market, the list goes on. If things are hard, good. They were meant to be. Punishment is equal to the crime that got them there in the first place, in my opinion.

Smoothcoffee wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2025 5:43 pm If you've reached the point where you've gotten yourself kicked out, and I can promise that I've seen cases of people working their way steadily up to it, chances are you deserved it. I've seen NPCs warn, post, and do everything except downright shoot a person, and no remorse equalled banishment because safety of the town and its citizens is paramount, not your character's feelings and justifications of doing something largely considered disruptive and harmful.
Sure, Cogg had other towns, but those towns did not align with a character's morals, so instead of taking the easy way out, they chose to rough it and continue to try to get back into the town that IS their home, where their friends live, and what ultimately, matters to them. If you are banished and you don't know what to do, you can do various things, including asking passersby or people who may be sympathetic, (or bribed), into helping. Turning hard riln into notes, having weapons taken in for repair, selling things at the market, the list goes on. If things are hard, good. They were meant to be. Punishment is equal to the crime that got them there in the first place, in my opinion.

This is all stuff I'd like Rias to post himself as publicly known OOC "deeds that will get you kicked out" so people can avoid it if they don't want to risk their character. Like I said, the problem isn't if it's for a good reason, it's the severity and lack of reimbursement for time invested. "Play a real berserker and get kicked out of Shadgard for punching one too many people who got too insulting for you? Make a new character." should not be the response to an established character providing realistic reactions. At least give people the proper warning of "oh playing a short-tempered character will get you kicked out of shadgard if you go ham one too many times for people insulting you".

I have no idea where the assumption that people will just drop in as a "murder everyone" character and get kicked out comes from. You could be playing an established character and just be a short-tempered individual, like, say, a berserker, and punch people in the face whenever they get too heavy on insults in town. If that eventually gets you banished for being one too many times? That's a problem, because you lose all access to the town for RPing well.

Marauder wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2025 5:22 pm It's going to adversely effect RP because nobody wants to give up their character to banishment, even if, say, their character would get rightfully enraged by somebody pushing for it IC and then proceed to clock them in the face or vice versa. The moment anyone who has the power deems that "too destructive" is the moment they lose that character, in that sense.

People aren't getting banished from town for punching someone in the face in a heated argument. Shadgard has a jailhouse; you seem to be worrying that banishment is going suddenly start being doled out for any kind of minor crime or the slightest CvC action. Banishment has been rare in the past and it's not going to become any less so (unless people start acting banish-worthy more often, I guess). The situation you described sounds more like all it would merit was a militia member showing up to tell them to break it up and move along.

I can understand the worry that at some point staff might disagree with you on what merits town banishment, but at the end of the day just by playing this game you're going to have to extend *some* level of trust to game staff. Simply leaving it at "you can murder people in town square all you want, you'll just have to stay outside the gates for a few days between incidents" just doesn't seem reasonable or believable. Most instances of banishment have had build-up to them, and often the hammer only ends up getting dropped because when the character is confronted about it by an NPC they essentially folds their arms, digs in their heels, and says "screw you, I'll do it again in a minute" because yeah, nobody likes bowing to punitive authority figures in the moment.

And honestly, if the threat of banishment is causing some specific types of RP to be hesitated over because there are legitimate worries that it could believably get them kicked out of town ... that's the system working. That's the point. This isn't meant to be a free-for-all where everything goes unpunished as long as there's some RP reasoning behind it.

Ninetales16 wrote: Wed Jan 15, 2025 5:24 pm Will this mean characters part of the claws are still forbidden at all from coming back into shadgard by default, even if said characters have not made any dirrect threats or actions detrimenting the town proper, killing, or any other heinous acts?

They're still forbidden as of now, but if Claw as an organization ends up separating from Corvus, has some time to prove it's moved to a more impartial political stance so to speak (hopefully with the help of some of the PCs!), and some members who haven't done anything personally against Shadgard are willing and able to prove themselves trustable, they could worm their way back in.

But you *don't* get kicked out for punching people in the face. I've seen plenty of people whose characters are short tempered punch someone in town and not get banished. It doesn't work like that. Endangering the town, or its people, being a hazard/repeat murderer of people in the town that becomes far too disruptive, possibly being an arsonist, all valid, bad bad reasons.