The World of Layonara
NWN Discussions and Suggestions => NWN Ideas, Suggestions, Requests => Topic started by: Shiokara on February 03, 2010, 04:18:33 am
-
This is an idea I had that I'm still kind of working out, and which may be wholly unrealistic, but here goes:
Since Layonara's current incarnation is NWN-based there is currently no skill-based progression for characters who are more pacifistic in nature. While it's true you can RP a character this way and have a rich experience all while being level 1, the system itself is designed in such a way that you receive the fullest experience if you progress through levels. This, I think, discourages a lot of players from submitting such characters because while they like to RP, there is just a certain amount of positive reward associated with mechanical progression that cannot be emulated with a character of this type.
DMs and WLs have the xp wands, which helps with this a little, but only when they're around, which is subject to variable availability depending on time zone issues and other matters. This is an attempt to get around that.
Now, Layonara's lore includes in it some deities that not only encourage a certain amount of pacifism, but require it. These are significantly underrepresented in the player base likely for this reason. I imagine that there are also NPCs that exist, which don't worship a deity and yet are pacifistic, maybe even some stonebound NPCs that we just don't hear about. I understand the pacifism of these deities is related to the lore used for the MMO, which, I assume, will have viable ways for character to progress without fighting (like practicing inscription or somesuch thing), but this solution is intended for the current situation, which is MMO-based lore being used to mold an NWN incarnation of Layo.
Thus, I believe pacifism should be handled this way. If a player wishes to play a pacifistic character, he must decide so from the original character submission only. This could look like a statement, and could be considered similar to class submission restrictions.
Progression will be decided based solely on logs, screenshots, CDQs, and entries which the player keeps. (NOTE: It is the responsibility of the Player to keep these. I cannot stress that enough.) XP will be decided based on how well these characters can represent their RP. When a player feels he has enough evidence gathered to progress, then he should post his readiness in the Character Submissions forum. Essentially this would look like, "Pacifistic Character Progression Request - (Name)". Now, obviously one will not be doing this for every level. That would be unfair to the GMs and approvers. To reduce the burden on the GM team I would suggest only offering progression to milestone levels. I.E. Progression to 10 so the character can do CDQs, Progression to 20 so the character can go for WL, with some exceptions as Pacifist Druids could be allowed a "Progression to 16" post so that they can have tree-walk.
With only really 2-4 reviews of character progression in this way it shouldn't create too much of a strain. This strain is further reduced when you consider placing other rules into affect like, "You cannot attempt a CDQ until two months after your level 10 Character Progression submission. This is essentially taking a CDQ slot." Also, even with this policy in place I don't think you're going to see any big rush to create pacifists.
Oh, as a side rule. If a player breaks the pacifist agreement by fighting, it should be treated as a grave offense. I would say first offense: A warning you're headed down the path to destruction. Second offense: You lose said character as you've made it clear you cannot RP a pacifist any longer.
-
I think this is a great idea, but could result in a lot of work on the team, but a great Idea still.
One thing to know though. There is situation where even pacifist might have to take arms, as to defend themselves, or someone. I'm pretty sure even the most zen person do not walk on the grass in case you kill an ant, would not stand by arms folded if his child was being murdered by a dark elf. So that means an understanding of both parties that such situation could happen and should not be frowned upon. Of course one with that kind of progression should not jump in into every situation that could lead him to defend himself.
-
I like this idea, and I don't like it.
I like it for the fact (and I've had my hashings about this, that some of the Team would bop me for, heh) that presently, all (DnD/NWN) classes not only require combat to progress, but are designed from the ground up to be for the kind of character that would engage in combat. There just simply is no room in NWN for pacifist characters unless you flat out ignore the mechanics. (and if you ignore the mechanics of the classes, that should allow for an open interpretation of every class-the chosen class ceases to matter with regard to character- fighters that don't fight, bards that don't use music, etc.- but that's a whole other pickle that I probably shouldn't get into)
I don't like this for the fact that the whole system you've devised relies on subjective progression rather than objective progression. It's subjective because there's no guarantee that if you do this, you'll get that. You're entirely at the mercy of someone else and if you disagree about the RP of something, because you are the player, you get stuck with whatever is decided. We already rely on subjective systems for enough things already, and even though these systems/processes are necessary, they aren't ideal.
For all its faults and failings, DnD/NWN does at least have an objective method of progression. If you kill x-amount of baddies, you will get a level. And then we've added to that: If you attend this many quest hours, you will get a level. And that's what the MMO will bring to the table: objective progression for non-combat characters outside of quest hours. But with NWN, unless you want to subject yourself to subjective review and advancement (something I personally don't like to do), your options are quest hours, the occasional RP XP, and being okay with what likely is slow mechanical advancement (which really shouldn't matter at all for those attempting pacifists since all mechanical progression grants you combat related abilities whether you like it or not, heh), or not to play a pacifist in the NWN incarnation of Layo.
-
One thing to know though. There is situation where even pacifist might have to take arms, as to defend themselves, or someone. I'm pretty sure even the most zen person do not walk on the grass in case you kill an ant, would not stand by arms folded if his child was being murdered by a dark elf.
*Start of off-topic post*
I'm sorry Hellblazer but I disagree. Im thinking of the writer Lytton Strachey who was a pacifist and a conscientious objector, who refused to fight in world war one. When he was questioned by the board who decided whether he should be tried for cowardice, the question was "Suppose a german soldier tried to rape you sister, what would you do?". His answer famously was "In that case, I would endeavour to place myself between them". So I think if such an idea was implemented, then it would be a case of no violence whatever the circumstance.
*End of off-topic post*
Cool idea though.
-
I generally agree with what Milty said - my biggest problem is more RP justification for sudden leaps in mecanical power - I understand your suggestion is to limit our time in administering these application. However, does it really make sense for the mechanical attributes (even non-combat ones) like saves to suddenly jump up, for characters to gain 50 skill points, etc. all at once? I would also object to the exception for druids, since all classes get special abilities at various levels - the tree walking branch is a cool one, but if one exception were made, it would be hard to draw a line.
If such a suggestion were implemented, I would structure it as follows:
- A character has to reach level 5 via the mechanical in-game methods. With static quests, crafting xp, and RP awards, I think this is reasonable.
- After reaching level 5, and after three months have passed, and a character has substantial CDT, a character can apply to have their level raised to 10. GM testimony would be solicited, similarly to Evil applications, to ensure that the character has been active and RPed the role appropriately.
- After a further 3 months have passed, the CDT has been developed further, and more GM testimony, the character would be given a bump up to level 15.
- After level 15, the character would have to advance viz RP and Quest xp. [DMs would have discretion to award an hour of RP xp for strong CDT posts - not sure if this could be administered fairly].
Reaching level 20 should be very difficult for these characters, and I don't think automatic approval should be given that high.
In response to HB, while I don't think we should require characters to walk with a broom and sweep little insects out of their path (which some members of pacifistic religions in RL do), I do think their should be a bright line no killing rule. I can see exceptions for non-lethal dice-rolling between players, and OOC mechanical reasons (eg. attacks of opportunity killing a deer or whatever). Other than that, some strong remedy needs to be imposed, whether its NPCification of the character, or simply removing all levels gained, and no longer allowing the character to advance via the pacifistic system.
-
I don't want to push for the original system I posted. I'd be much more interested in banging out a system that actually works and that the most people can agree with if any system at all.
I agree with all of ycleption's points. They make a lot of sense. I also agree with the reinforcement of a pacifistic agreement. Consider that any CDQ/Quest your pacifist character would undertake would very likely not even place him in such a situation.
I also agree with Milty's reservations about a subjective system versus an objective system. It just seems that in the absence of an objective system, which will eventually exist, this system is set in place in the meantime, and is better than the little support already available.
That said let's look at the system thus far:
* A character must be submitted as Pacifistic and cannot deviate from this
* A character has to reach level 5 via the mechanical in-game methods. With static quests, crafting xp, and RP awards, I think this is reasonable.
* After reaching level 5, and after three months have passed, and a character has substantial CDT, a character can apply to have their level raised to 10. GM testimony would be solicited, similarly to Evil applications, to ensure that the character has been active and RPed the role appropriately.
* After a further 3 months have passed, the CDT has been developed further, and more GM testimony, the character would be given a bump up to level 15.
* After level 15, the character would have to advance viz RP and Quest xp. [DMs would have discretion to award an hour of RP xp for strong CDT posts - not sure if this could be administered fairly].
* If a player is caught engaging in ANY combat he is subject first to a warning. Second offenses will result in loss of character by seeing said character becomes an NPC or dies.
There is one thing I might argue here is instead of applying to 15, bump that character up to 16 instead. Wizards and Paladins (the other two base classes that get cool feats) get their teleportation and warhorse at 14, and druids get tree walking at 16. This would allow all classes to have their nifty RP device by this time. Heck even barbarians (who I couldn't imagine being pacifists) get their nifty Greater Rage at 15. What would you say of that?
-
Just to suggest...
Instead of these huge jumps from level 1-5-10-15 in lumps, if approved, 2-3 weeks should pass between getting the levels AFTER the the approval. That way it's not just a sudden "POWER UP!"
EDIT: I mean in between EACH level. level 5 (2-3 weeks) 6 (2-3 wks) 7 (2-3 wks) 8 etc
-
Just to suggest...
Instead of these huge jumps from level 1-5-10-15 in lumps, if approved, 2-3 weeks should pass between getting the levels AFTER the the approval. That way it's not just a sudden "POWER UP!"
EDIT: I mean in between EACH level. level 5 (2-3 weeks) 6 (2-3 wks) 7 (2-3 wks) 8 etc
I wanted to avoid this particularly to reduce the burden it would create in submissions. We're talking a review every 2-3 weeks just so a character can move one level. In the current plan that would mean 10 reviews by 15 provided the player makes level 5 on their own.
The reason jumping 5 levels as a sudden "POWER UP!" is not really an issue for pacifistic characters is because the only thing they're really using this for is to gain access to CDQs, higher skills, and more gravitas in RP situations. Seeing as there is no actual fighting or use of the basic combat-related skills 5 levels doesn't really mean that much in terms of mechanical use beyond those points.
-
I think what Shiff is suggesting is that the approval would only entitle a character to get five periodic single level increases over the course of a couple months...
Assuming that is what he meant, it makes sense to me, although maybe some administrative/DMy people might want to chime in as to how much work that would take to track and so forth?
-
Yeah, I mean after the approval for the next 5 level ups, the level ups are not a lump but periodic after the fact, like Alignment Shift adjustments
-
That sounds pretty solid. If it gets handled in this way, then I'd say there should still be a 3 month wait from the time the LAST level is given in the 5-level set. This would look like approval for increase in first 5 levels by which 1 level is given, say, biweekly and once the character hits 10 (from 9) then the three month wait period for CDQs/Further progression starts. Like ycleption, I'd like to hear from the DMs on this. On paper it seems feasible since Shiff states it's already sort of done with the alignment shift points.
I'll also suggest that the wait-time be increased for the 10-15 level approval. Say somewhere around 1-2 months (as this would be similar to the amount of time it would take to progress between each level with combat available).
As far as tracking goes, I'm no DM, but this could be as easy as a post in a DM-visible forum that says, "1 level ( 7-8 )distributed to Player Name on 2/3/2010." *shrug*
-
To start with, I am in no way trying to quash this discussion but I am curious what the difference between this plan and what currently in place is meant to achieve/cure. The reason I ask is this:
A player, who never intends to lift a weapon during their career, can simply choose to do so. They can advance from 1 - 20 in a year's time (per the WL guideline (http://forums.layonara.com/world-leader-development-quests-wldqs/93208-what-does-take-world-leader.html)) through GM quests and the passive static quests provided in game. It has been done to varying degrees by players who currently play. A character who levels too fast, meaning achieving 20 before they are one year old, actually has to overcome a deficiency in their application in order to be approved for WLDQ.
So again, I'm not really saying whether this is a bad or good idea, I'm just wondering after what specifically is trying to be cured by having an instituted process of automagical level granting for pacifist characters. That would better allow some of us to comment meaningfully on the suggested process.
Thanks!
~row
-
From what I gather from the linked post, a pacifistic character has to have a year's playtime of being a positive force in the community, acheive level 20, and pretty much goes through the same process as other WL applicants. This is the same system given for those who aren't pacifists. Thus, since both seem to be treated the same way, there remains an emphasis to play characters who aren't pacifists because they can more easily progress in a year to the required level. This system would be set in place in order to balance the opportunity available between pacifistic characters and those who are not.
In essence a character-blind system which treats pacifistic characters the same as those who aren't is not actually a balanced system because NWN in itself supports characters to take active roles and not pacifistic roles.
I will also argue that a fair portion of quests discourage pacifistic characters based on the nature of the quest. There are no DM-run quests in which characters can earn quest experience by holding a peaceful protest in Rael by making a scene and getting beaten without resisting by a contingent of Adamantium Guard. And this is just in the sense of non-combat pacifists.
Even less is available for the advancement of true Aragenites, who, as a rule, would not even speak during a quest because it might influence events. Indeed, even being present at events is hard for Aragenites since they might be perceived and thus change things that way, which would ruin the objective nature of their observations. Thus, making quest attendance a problem/conflict of RP for these characters.
This system would help characters of both types advance such that they can take a more actively passive role in the world. Like a reward for a job well-done, which other characters receive through combat and the traditional quest roles.
As things stand I believe pacifists are indirectly discouraged from existing in the world. The cure is to raise up pacifistic characters such that they can stand equal to active ones, and part of this has to do with mechanics.
I will argue that players subconsciously deal with characters of variable levels differently. A level 36 character is perceived on the server status page (and other methods) differently from a level 4 character. This is represented in-game by challenge ratings. If a character checks one character and sees him as "Impossible" I will come right out and say that either consciously or subconsciously that player will deal differently with that character than one who checks "Effortless". In essence, this is also a cure for a metagaming issue. This in no way reflects badly on the player that does it as all it means is that he filters the different characters into separate schema in his brain. I.E. a separate schema for high-levels as opposed to one for low-levels. These schema carry with them certain stereotypes that I think can be overcome.
So this is a cure to both balance the playing field between character types, to reward players of characters which are as such severely underrepresented, and to reduce a problem with metagaming.
-
From what I gather from the linked post, a pacifistic character has to have a year's playtime of being a positive force in the community, acheive level 20, and pretty much goes through the same process as other WL applicants. This is the same system given for those who aren't pacifists. Thus, since both seem to be treated the same way, there remains an emphasis to play characters who aren't pacifists because they can more easily progress in a year to the required level. This system would be set in place in order to balance the opportunity available between pacifistic characters and those who are not.
In essence a character-blind system which treats pacifistic characters the same as those who aren't is not actually a balanced system because NWN in itself supports characters to take active roles and not pacifistic roles.
Again I'm concerned and intrigued, but see below for further elaboration and comment.
I will also argue that a fair portion of quests discourage pacifistic characters based on the nature of the quest. There are no DM-run quests in which characters can earn quest experience by holding a peaceful protest in Rael by making a scene and getting beaten without resisting by a contingent of Adamantium Guard. And this is just in the sense of non-combat pacifists.
There's nothing stopping the players from requesting such an event here (http://forums.layonara.com/../quests-ideas-discussion/) and having a GM pick it up.
Even less is available for the advancement of true Aragenites, who, as a rule, would not even speak during a quest because it might influence events. Indeed, even being present at events is hard for Aragenites since they might be perceived and thus change things that way, which would ruin the objective nature of their observations. Thus, making quest attendance a problem/conflict of RP for these characters.
If an Aragenite in my quests is actively emoting and behaving like an Araganite is portrayed in lore, they will get the same exp, and potentially even a bonus depending. I think it's reasonably safe to assume that the rest of the GM team feels similarly.
This system would help characters of both types advance such that they can take a more actively passive role in the world. Like a reward for a job well-done, which other characters receive through combat and the traditional quest roles.
With my above comments I again am a little confused as to why there is a perceived brokenness to the current system. We have all manner of player run charities, causes etc. We have players who have risen in status (at least one currently active WL in fact) due to actions taken that had nothing to do with battle prowess at all. That character is highly respected by the GM team and by most of the community for their efforts.
As things stand I believe pacifists are indirectly discouraged from existing in the world. The cure is to raise up pacifistic characters such that they can stand equal to active ones, and part of this has to do with mechanics.
Can you elaborate a little bit here? There really shouldn't be any sort of discouragement of -any- RP style (unless of course that play style is aggressive toward other players), so if you can explain more of what you mean I think perhaps that would be the better angle to pursue. (I say this because that seems to be the sentiment that your initial post was attempting to 'cure').
I want to reiterate something that has been said elsewhere in the forums. There are deities who spurn and even punish for combative behaviors or even just involvement in general. There are also plenty of characters that may have no religious affiliations who would be considered pacifist as well. The GM team encourages that kind of RP if that is what the player prefers. It is up to the player to decide how to implement their character choices. I'm concerned now, I suppose, that there seems to be some sentiment that the GM team somehow discourages this play style even though the it is clearly written into our lore.
I will argue that players subconsciously deal with characters of variable levels differently. A level 36 character is perceived on the server status page (and other methods) differently from a level 4 character. This is represented in-game by challenge ratings. If a character checks one character and sees him as "Impossible" I will come right out and say that either consciously or subconsciously that player will deal differently with that character than one who checks "Effortless". In essence, this is also a cure for a metagaming issue. This in no way reflects badly on the player that does it as all it means is that he filters the different characters into separate schema in his brain. I.E. a separate schema for high-levels as opposed to one for low-levels. These schema carry with them certain stereotypes that I think can be overcome.
I don't disagree here, there are many players who openly admit to this issue and others who openly admit that they rate power this way on purpose. However that's not something that the GM team can control or regulate.
So this is a cure to both balance the playing field between character types, to reward players of characters which are as such severely underrepresented, and to reduce a problem with metagaming.
The GM team is completely open to pacifist play styles. If a pacifist character wishes to stage something there are two ways of going about this. Request a CDQ, no exp will be given but other RP and tangible rewards are typically given here. Or, make a suggestion in the above linked forum and see if there's a member of the GM team who will take up the quest and run it openly to all.
If there is indeed some sort of sentiment out there that is being circulated that the GM team doesn't support a pacifist play style, we should probably seek away to end that. I realize that a vast number of quests seem to be geared toward combat in some fashion or another. In the past this has been what the majority of the server desires so these are the sort of stock quests we provide. If there are players out there with other desires and wishes for their questing time, please encourage them to post in the linked forum above.
With regards to the plot lines we encourage a variety of out of the box thinking there which can encompass everything from espionage to peace corp type efforts (though please don't refer to it as 'peace corp' IC, obviously) to direct conflict, to everything in between. There's no, written-in-stone type of direct line we want players to engage in order to 'solve' a plot including the main plot. That is one of the aspects that keeps me on as a GM is the excitement of watching the creative players on this server find alternate routes that we didn't think of or even if we did, how they implement them.
With regards to the World Leader aspect of things, part of what I linked that for was because your initial concept cited level raising for the ability to apply for World Leader status. We do not expect every player to apply for World Leader at this time. I would that every player performed with that level of commitment however, it would be delightful to see! This is, unfortunately for me, not everyone's cup of tea and I respect that fully. If a player takes eighteen months to achieve level twenty, two years, three, doesn't really matter. The year is listed there as a minimum to discourage fast leveling over character development (see also: meaningful RP).
Layonara's present plan/theory/intent is to allow players to RP as suits them within certain protective brackets for the community. We always wish to see commendable RP from whatever type of character the player runs, for the mutual enjoyment of all. If that indeed means that a player spends the career of a character looking for peaceful endings to everything, we're happy with that and will reward accordingly.
One last thing for my response here. I hope this isn't the case, but in case it is I want to clear it up. The GM team doesn't have to exist on this server for any character to level and advance. We could step away from the world and people would manage to achieve level fourty with any number of characters. The GM team remains in place so that something beyond the mechanics of the game can be achieved. We do not use NWN because we want players to adhere solely to the mechanical aspects of NWN. We use NWN as the springboard for community RP and development because it was what was available at the time. So the adherence to the mechanics isn't something that's desired as a goal. It is only used in balance to equalize generally between players. I won't pretend to know what the World Creator, Leanthar, was considering when he began his world via NWN but I would expect it had more to do with viablity for support, familiarity for other players and ease of use over strict mechanical guidelines. So no, Combat wasn't desired as the main goal of Layonara NWN. It's just the most commonly pursued route. It is not the singular potential route of advancement, just the most commonly used and quickest. As far as I'm concerned, 'quick' doesn't necessarily denote 'better.' Taking time to build up one's character to something rich and world affecting takes time and is highly rewarded (as we can!) on this server.
So again I'm looking for more from you because I sense there is something to what you are saying but I don't think the -system- that is in place is currently what needs addressing. Certainly feel free to debate and develop your option as you like but I think the better avenue would be to deduce and solve error between what the GM team supports and what the community seems to feel the GM team supports.
Regards,
~row
-
*Start of off-topic post*
I'm sorry Hellblazer but I disagree. Im thinking of the writer Lytton Strachey who was a pacifist and a conscientious objector, who refused to fight in world war one. When he was questioned by the board who decided whether he should be tried for cowardice, the question was "Suppose a german soldier tried to rape you sister, what would you do?". His answer famously was "In that case, I would endeavour to place myself between them". So I think if such an idea was implemented, then it would be a case of no violence whatever the circumstance.
*End of off-topic post*
Cool idea though.
I agree with you there, but we are speaking of one man out of millions that prone non violence. And in it self placing himself in between his sister and the perpetrator, could result in violence if they decide to take him down? I'm just saying that if such a system exist, then self defense when absolutely necessary, should not be frown upon.
-
I like this idea, and I don't like it.
I don't like this for the fact that the whole system you've devised relies on subjective progression rather than objective progression. It's subjective because there's no guarantee that if you do this, you'll get that. You're entirely at the mercy of someone else and if you disagree about the RP of something, because you are the player, you get stuck with whatever is decided. We already rely on subjective systems for enough things already, and even though these systems/processes are necessary, they aren't ideal.
For all its faults and failings, DnD/NWN does at least have an objective method of progression. If you kill x-amount of baddies, you will get a level. And then we've added to that: If you attend this many quest hours, you will get a level. ....
I agree with this and we do in fact already have a non combat xp system in place - its crafting. If we need a system for non-violent progression, then why not go this way and expend the crafting system to include a chore system* for non combat xp? Also, pacifists have a bit of luck in Layo. Undead aren't covered moral objections to harming living creatures.
Imagine what a subjective system for progression would bring in terms of rumours of favouritism, frustrations with gms etc. If I were a gm I would be rather reluctant to introduce a system where "I would be damned if I do and damned if I don't".
And I havent even mentioned the soulmother yet...
*(as if crafting isn't already a chore.. ;) )
-
I agree with this and we do in fact already have a non combat xp system in place - its crafting. If we need a system for non-violent progression, then why not go this way and expend the crafting system to include a chore system* for non combat xp? Also, pacifists have a bit of luck in Layo. Undead aren't covered moral objections to harming living creatures.
I have to say that the game isn't geared for pacifist crafters. When they start off, they have to go gather the things they need because they don't have the trues to buy the cnr. And I doubt that no one would ever have enough trues to always pay others to get the cnr they need to progress in a craft. And most cnrs but the lowest cr one (and those are pretty rare), are guarded by creatures, that you will have to kill. Would a pacifist play cards, when it's summoning creatures to fight themselves? Don't think so. So there again, there is little avenue for one to get the trues he needs to advance in crafting. So that option is out. Sure they could fight undead, but a pacific person in what this thread is meant to be, would refuse fighting all together, or even travel with people that do the fighting.
I think that if such system was to exist, a lot of the current systems would have to be rethink so they could allow a certain degree of ease for non fighting chars. But then the fighting chars would also take advantage of that.
I love the idea that is being brought forth though. Just have to find a balance in it. It also means that a lot of the things that currently are in place for players enjoyment, would be unavailable to that char.
-
Pacifist crafters can trade for what they need to craft, even ask for all the necessary items and materials in exchange for the act of crafting. They don't have to go get the things on their own. Cooking is a craft that requires very little in the way of killing anything overall, and has a very low cost in terms of materials. For gold, doing something like gathering eggs for scribes can be very profitable, and nothing needs to be harmed in the process.
I know a pacifist crafter character. This can be done.
The greater issue with using crafting to advance pacifist characters is that the crafting XP scale is much smaller than the adventuring XP scale, so ultimately, there's an end to how far someone can advance as a character solely from crafting.
The root of the problem is that NWN mechancial progression is based on XP, and as such, there is very little a pacifist character can do independently to advance within NWN. By "independently" I mean solely through in-game mechanics and systems or thorugh self-guided interactions with other characters. GM involvement is not needed for independent advancement. However, NWN as a system provides more avenues for independent advancement for the non-pacifist. Therefore, most characters with pacifist leanings have done the bulk of their advancement through GM quests and similar interactions.
As has been stated before, NWN is ill-suited to a pacifist mindset, but it is possible to play one, if one is willing to make sacrifices and adjustments and work within those boundaries rather than lament them.
The MMO will not have this problem, because advancement is not based on what you kill but what you do. There aren't really any bursts of power, other than to say that as you advance, new things become available to you (i.e. a brand new Spellweaver character is not going to be able to cast the highest power spell starting out, but will in time). Rather, as you continue to do a thing, you get better at the thing, whether that is combat or foraging for plants.
I know that doesn't help us now, but it highlights the profound difference between trying to bolt a pacifism system onto a game system that is inherently non-pacifistic and starting with a system that allows for pacifism from the very beginning.
-
Let me make it clear that I do not think the GM team directly discourages the existence of pacifistic characters. Furthermore, I am sure that if the team were convinced that certain policies discouraged this avenue of character development, that they would endeavor to change it. The amount of attention paid to this thread shows, at the least, that.
Second, I want to acknowledge that having a passive crafter is entirely possible. I do not think, however, that pacifist characters should have to be crafters in order to achieve progression (though I will compromise and say this is certainly an available option to reach level 5 as ycleption suggested).
The root of the problem is that NWN mechancial progression is based on XP, and as such, there is very little a pacifist character can do independently to advance within NWN. By "independently" I mean solely through in-game mechanics and systems or thorugh self-guided interactions with other characters. GM involvement is not needed for independent advancement. However, NWN as a system provides more avenues for independent advancement for the non-pacifist. Therefore, most characters with pacifist leanings have done the bulk of their advancement through GM quests and similar interactions.
Dorg is spot on here. NWN supports XP advancement, which is hard to achieve independently for pacifists. The entire point, again, is to undue some of this hardship by setting in place a defined system by which the mechanics of NWN can be manipulated to advance these characters in a way that's meaningful.
As has been stated before, NWN is ill-suited to a pacifist mindset, but it is possible to play one, if one is willing to make sacrifices and adjustments and work within those boundaries rather than lament them.
This is true. It is possible to play one, but possibility is not enough to convince players to actually take this chance. This is because it is far easier to play the game the way it was intended from the original development phase. Unfortunately, the game as it was originally intended no longer coincides (if it ever did) with Layonara's aim, which is to have all routes be accessible. So long as it is easier to go one route than another this is an unfair system.
It is true that the most hardcore players who want to make pacifists may "work within those boundaries rather than lament them", but that is hardly a statement that the current system is "fair and balanced", and I imagine in those cases where the mechanical engine can be worked with to produce a more equitable system all around, steps would be taken to do so. Working within one's boundaries rather than lamenting them can break down to, "Look, if you want to make a pacifist character, accept the fact you'll be limited mechanically, and stop complaining about it. You took it on yourself by being a pacifist". This is hardly the kind of logic that would suggest all options are viable, accessible, and have equal amounts of opportunity for advancement.
The thing is that it doesn't have to be this way. An agreed upon system for advancement could overcome this.
In a backwards way I've addressed a newer post first instead of starting with Row's earlier post to try and hammer out more details. Posting again with regards to that post to try and clarify my reasoning a bit more. :)
-
With regards to the quest suggestions forum. I see that it is largely out of use the one suggested quest line, which has no replies, and which I don't think ever made it to fruition, will be a year old in a couple months. The other posts seem more to be follow-up forum RP sessions (which may be quest based or in-game RP based it seems) or announcements of quests that the GMs will be running. This may reflect in the general player base being pleased with what is being run, or it may reflect doubts about anything being suggested actually being taken up. It may also reflect a lack of ideas, but one thing is for certain. The forum doesn't see all that much use in the quest suggestion department, at least in the last year.
If an Aragenite in my quests is actively emoting and behaving like an Araganite is portrayed in lore, they will get the same exp, and potentially even a bonus depending. I think it's reasonably safe to assume that the rest of the GM team feels similarly.
I find it admirable that you and the team would award an Aragenite for that play, but again this xp gain is limited to the ability of that player to attend quests as well as the character's interest in quests. It is not a definite avenue for advancement because of this.
With my above comments I again am a little confused as to why there is a perceived brokenness to the current system.
All of those examples of the system work. The problem is that it's not enough to encourage players to take their chances with a pacifistic character. All those avenues are just as available to characters capable of independent progression as they are to pacifistic characters. Thus, while the individual pieces all work, the system is broken in relation to pacifistic characters because they are at a disadvantage from creation. If you want to encourage all character types to be created, then you should have equal opportunities for success. Since pacifistic characters do not have the combat system available to them that active characters have available, then an alternative system for progression should be created to set them as equal. There is currently no system in place that a pacifistic character can do that an active character cannot do. This would seek to change that as a way to balance the playing field.
Can you elaborate a little bit here? There really shouldn't be any sort of discouragement of -any- RP style
Indirect discouragement takes place when one group starts at a lower position than another. Even if I can craft, attend quests, RP, and so on, an active character can do all of these plus combat. Thus, why should I bother making a pacifistic character if it is not supported in a way that makes it equally viable to being an active character? This is coming from a player's reasoning standpoint for motivation to create characters. By not especially supporting pacifistic characters, players are indirectly discouraged from making them because they start out at lower place and have less potential than active characters. This is the essence of why people who are interested in pacifists do not submit them, or continue to play them for a very long time.
Let me make it clear that the GM team does not discourage pacifistic characters. If that somehow gets weaned from these posts, than the reader has received the wrong message.
On the point of metagaming that you don't disagree with you state:
However that's not something that the GM team can control or regulate.
I disagree somewhat. If it can't be controlled or regulated, then it can at least be ameliorated. I think a system like this would help reduce that aspect of metagaming.
With regards to applying for WL:
The year is listed there as a minimum to discourage fast leveling over character development (see also: meaningful RP).
This is true, and a year of play does discourage fast leveling. However this:
A player can request to have a WLDQ run in order to become a World Leader at any time after reaching level 20.
Suggests players must be at least level 20 to apply for WL status, which discourages players of pacifistic characters because an active character could apply for this position in a year when a pacifistic character could not. Not because they are less influential to the community. Not because they don't have a year's time under their belt. Not because they aren't inclusive. But because they aren't level 20. That, too, indirectly discourages players from pursuing this goal.
One last thing for my response here. I hope this isn't the case, but in case it is I want to clear it up. The GM team doesn't have to exist on this server for any character to level and advance. We could step away from the world and people would manage to achieve level fourty with any number of characters.
I would argue that if the GM team did this Layonara would cease to be. The world could exist mechanically, sure, but it wouldn't be Layo. It would have the look, but not the flavor. The lore wouldn't be there, and nothing would be enforced. You support this with your next statement:
The GM team remains in place so that something beyond the mechanics of the game can be achieved.
Exactly. And accessible pacifistic character progression is something beyond the mechanics of the game, but what is currently in place is not enough. It's not enough because it does not provide pacifistic players a kind of progression that active characters have mechanically. Since it does not exist mechanically, one should consider enacting it in another way. That's what this discussion is trying to do.
So again I'm looking for more from you because I sense there is something to what you are saying but I don't think the -system- that is in place is currently what needs addressing.
This is true. A player's mindset is relevant here because it's what interprets the indirect discouragement. You cannot change how motivators and such get interpreted because you cannot change the fundamental mechanics of progression in the game. You can, however, make up for this built in mechanical discouragement by working with what you've got available. This system would just give pacifistic characters something that has been taken away from them because of their lack of support in the original NWN game. Let me make it clear that Layonara is not NWN and the GM team is not NWN, but in order to overcome the obstacles NWN makes for pacifistic characters I have proposed this system. This is because the current system does nothing, again, to especially support them, when really they need it.
Let me draw a parallel, as scarily inaccurate as they can be. I have in my English classroom a pacifist. Now I have a certain amount of measures in place to assure that all students succeed (group work, reader-response journals, etc.), but the problem is that all of my literature relates to the glorification of combat and fighting. I am indirectly discouraging the ideals of pacifism in this way by not including in my curriculum something to represent that student's interests. This can indirectly discourage the student from performing when he thinks, "Where am I represented in this classroom?" This is similar to how Layo is currently working. There are pacifist characters that exist in potentia, and you have taken measures to assure the success of ALL characters (crafting, CDQs, quests, etc.), but due to the curriculum (Mechanical NWN) the pacifistic character is shunned. Thus there some representation of them somewhere, and in this sense, since they can't get it from NWN, they have to rely on you to create a system that allows them to progress with equal opportunity. Remember, equity is different from giving everyone exactly the same thing.
-
It's probably worthwhile to point out that Rowana's main character is in fact quite pacifistic (Katian, so she plays that way by choice, not dogma) and has done the vast majority of her advancement through GM quests and RP bumps. She's 20th level though has not yet applied for WL status.
-
Took her a while to if I'm right, so all props to her for keeping at it all that time *two thumbs up*
-
Yes, it took her a long time, but it took her more time because she became a GM in the midst of that progression.
-
Regardless of my character's progress or no, I guess my question is, what is the difference between attending quests regularly and having a magical bump every so often that would have to be approved through in-depth character development anyway? I do understand, as Dorganath points out, really well what you are getting at about the difficulty. I just don't know that an artificial bump will be any easier to obtain that simply attending quests or RPing and receiving RP exp along the way. If you look back at various requests, Alignment shifts, ear approvals, database edits and such, they take time to get a GM to connect up because we are a volunteer group and only have so many hours for various contributions. We do get out there as quick as we can but sometimes, it just doesn't get done for a long while. It really is actually probably easier to attend quests regularly to achieve the same ends.
I do know that there have been some folks in the past who have had issues trying to get to quests, and that's really a whole other animal, but if you are attending quests and RPing around on the server you're going to be able to achieve the same things as characters who regularly hack their way to experience for various reasons. (No disrespect to all you Voraxians!) As a GM I've noticed that the folks who spend a lot of time dungeon crawling don't spend near as much time in quests and I think it balances out between the two. Certainly those who are not pacifists could take advantage of the additional quest hours where the pacifists could not take advantage of the additional hunting exp it's true, but really, it's very few people who take full advantage of both.
~row
-
Alright. It is enough for me that you've heard out and understood my argument and even agree somewhat in context. If you say that my reasoning is flawed in reality because quest-goers for the most part are not the same people who level via combat means, then I'll back down from this suggestion.
Anyone is, of course, welcome to continue arguing for it if they disagree, but since I am interested only in seeing that the system is equitable for all characters I'm backing out. Thanks to everyone who contributed and considered the possibilities and pitfalls here. It's been a good discussion, I think.
-
I think it's mainly due to the hours available for quests. I was talking about this exact thing today with an old player that left. And she left because she felt some pressure not to attend quests or impromptus if she wasn't sure she could stay the whole time. Now she did say that it was always tactful and respectful, but that after a while it drained her fun out of playing here. A lack of respect for the char development due to not being able to anteing quests because of her playing availability she said. All of that can come into play I guess, vs the easy way of getting the xp and other development a chars would have otherwise.
Also, most of the quests I have seen lately have been a mix of rp and bashiness, that wouldn't suit the pacifist chars much. Not to count the quests that have been closed off as they are series or to lower level, which is not bad at all, but it can take out a lot of possibilities to those chars out there that would try to gain their xp through quest for pacific chars. I think there need to be a whole lot more no bash quest unless utterly stupid actions were taken, so that those who wants to try out pacific chars can then have the choice of what to do, by their time allocation, and if the quest suits the chars beliefs.
Yes, it took her a long time, but it took her more time because she became a GM in the midst of that progression.
Oh please don't misunderstand me there Dorg. I understand her time constraint of why it took this long. But still, because of that she could have decided to go an other way, but staid with her plans. Which is why I tip my hat to her.
-
You know, causing a community member to 'backdown' is rarely ever my intent when I respond to posts. It is not so in this case, nor am I calling your logic 'flawed' per se. There are problems with the current offering however, and the system would really need some fleshing out to truly be more beneficial then attending quests/obtaining other RP exp. That was more my point.
Initially I was under the impression from this post and several others on the topic, that people felt pacifism was not supported by the GM team. It is of course and I'm glad that's not a misconception that is currently in place. There is likely always room for improvement so suggestions/debates are typically welcomed by the team, and as you can see we do give them attention (Even if we don't always answer. Answering to the fullest of our ability or even sometimes by half tends to quash discussions and that's really not our intent, as I've said). I'll bow out here if any wish to continue to puzzle through this potential solution to pacifism support, but I wanted to make clear that pushing a player into silence is not the intent we enter into these discussions with.
~row
-
Also, most of the quests I have seen lately have been a mix of rp and bashiness, that wouldn't suit the pacifist chars much. Not to count the quests that have been closed off as they are series or to lower level, which is not bad at all, but it can take out a lot of possibilities to those chars out there that would try to gain their xp through quest for pacific chars. I think there need to be a whole lot more no bash quest unless utterly stupid actions were taken, so that those who wants to try out pacific chars can then have the choice of what to do, by their time allocation, and if the quest suits the chars beliefs.
Alright one more and then I swear I'm done because this is the very thing I was targeting earlier. Why is it that people feel GMs do not support pacifism in a quest that has the potential for combat. That is an issue that needs addressing.
Okay, really leaving it, though I will be reading so please do share your thoughts on this question!
*bows out*
~row
-
I was going to send this as a PM, but I want this here for clarity. My decision to bow out of this discussion is wholly my own and not related to the responses. I simply can't think of any other concepts to introduce to try and balance things out, nor am I as convinced in my own position that this is necessary.
I realize that my word choice of "backing down" or "out" is one that connotes a beaten sort of mindset. This is inaccurate. I just wasn't thinking about my words as carefully as I normally do. I called my own logic flawed because that's how I perceived it to be. By flawed I mean it does not represent the reality, but rather represents the potential possibilities.
As for Row's last question my answer is this: It's possible that pacifistic characters don't see themselves in the bashier sorts of quests for a few reasons:
- They don't want to get in the way of bashier players' fun
- They don't want to be complicit to those basier actions either
- Players use those little quest keywords not as an interpretation of potential occurrences, but rather as a guide to what they can expect/what is likely to happen
- Finally. Players use the quest calendar summaries as a guide to answer the questions "Does this fit my character? Will my character have a place in this quest?" If all they have to go on are short summaries or key words like, "Some bashy, some puzzles"*, then they may not have enough information to justify trying to make the event, or they may conclude that they won't have a role altogether.
*I'm not thinking of any quest here. Just thinking of the types of keywords one finds to gather information on a quest.
My last, and final, suggestion for this particular question is this:
- Consider writing up more inclusive summaries, or
- Consider writing what various roles may look like in a quest, just to show players that their character could indeed have a supported role in the quest.
-
You actually pinpointed all the points I would have written.
But I think the second point is mostly it. In my personal opinion. If a pacific character wouldn't associate with people they know to prone violence then they would certainly not associate with them on a quest. So subconsciously or consciously, when the player sees the name of other players, or if he knows that the GM is really more the bashier type. He will probably not go on that quest, or bring an other character to the quest, if he can make it at all.
-
I know this is a sort of tired expression, especially when used as a trendy buzz-word in business situations, but part of the problem, I believe, is that people in general have trouble thinking "outside the box," or more specifically, they're stuck in the box.
A player of a pacifist character may see that there's the potential for combat on a quest and decide not to go on those grounds alone. I would ask: Why? It's one thing to avoid violence oneself, but to avoid those who may engage in violence is very limiting on many levels. Maybe that predicted "bashiness" is simply a challenge that lies between Point A and Point B, with whatever is at Point B being something very interesting or important, perhaps even to the pacifist character. This character could come along to be sure that a minimum amount of harm comes to the others through healing and magical protections/enhancements.
If you think about it, except when there is a specific "summons" in the quest event notice, the idea of assembling for a quest is rather artificial. No one's really going to cross continents to end up in some small village at the exact moment that some little girl claims to have lost her dolly to a "monster" and can you please, please get it back. In most cases, the RP of it all works out best if you just happened to be in that place and something happened that needed attention. In any case, a pacifist character can still go on the quest that may include bashing if for no other reason than to hopefully reduce the number of people who come to harm.
Athus (WL and Aeridinite priest), more often than not, would be made invisible by a mage and spend combat healing people rather than bringing out his clericy-might to smite foes, and this was long before the dogma we have today.
So just because NWN makes characters into killing machines doesn't mean you have to be one. Just because a quest talks about bashing doesn't mean you have to participate in the actual bashing, if it even occurs. A lot of times, you see "depending on character actions," and that's very true. Many times there's a choice between bashing and finding another way around. Usually the choice to enter combat is the simplest and quickest, but that doesn't mean there aren't other options in quest situations.
Regarding people staying away from quests who feel like they won't have the time to complete the whole session, that's an unfortunate decision. I'm pretty sure there is not a GM present who has not had people need to leave in the middle of a quest. It's not that big of a deal. Life happens, and we all have them to one degree or the other.
Anyway, there's no denying that playing a pacifist has its challenges. It very much does, especially in advancement. It's kind of along the same lines as playing a hated race. These are RP choices that we make and which carry a specific burden with them, but such choices are also opportunities for creativity and exploring what may be possible. I'm not suggesting that pacifists try and find some way to justify violence because that's what the game offers, but rather to take a step back and see what can be made of each situation through the eyes of a pacifist philosophy.
-
To expand on Dorg's comments above, there is a distinct difference between "conflict" and "combat." Conflict is not only what drives the game, but what drives life in general. We strive, and there in fact must be something to overcome or one can never achieve. A Pacifist is one who chooses specifically not to engage in certain kinds of conflict, usually that which involves physically harming another living creature.
The point is, if you assume a pacifist is one who avoids "conflict," then you're envisioining a character that can never exist, in a game or RL. For many people, just waking up in the morning is a conflict to be overcome, and were one of these to be a no-conflict pacifist, well, I suppose they'd never make it out of bed.
All quests involve conflict, and sometimes that conflict is resolved via combat. As Dorg pointed out, most of the time the problem can be solved without resorting to combat, but combat is often the players' choice. There should be no reason why a pacifist character should have to avoid a quest for IC reasons, even a quest which has a heading like "Gathering an army to kill trolls." The pacifist has a duty to either protect those he does not wish to be harmed while at the same time not directly harming anything himself, or, if she does not wish to even indirectly cause harm by supporting the army, she has every right to show up and try to convince the army of PCs that there has to be a better way, even offering some potential non-combat solutions. The pacifist may be utterly ignored, of course, but he/she is participating in the conflict that's important to him/her.
All of that is said to address IC concerns of advancement and participation as a pacifist. The OOC concerns, like ruining the fun for others, not being able to make quests, inequality in advancement opportunities, etc. are a whole other pickle.
-
Here's the issue in my mind - the game is very different currently. Back in the Hlint bench days, there was a lot more opportunity for the casual type of RP which can help sustain the fun of playing a character who doesn't engage in violence. Today, its harder to find. Back then, random RP awards were more common. Most of the current characters who I can think of who are relatively pacifistic were started back in those days, and seem to be played less often now. I can think of a number of more recent pacifistic characters whose players simply lost interest, or never really got the character off the ground.
The issue is cyclical - there are not enough pacifistic characters, so players don't request non-bashy quests, so DMs mostly run bashy quests, so fewer people submit/play pacifistic characters, so there are not enough pacifistic characters, so players don't request non-bashy quests, so DMs mostly run bashy quests, so fewer people submit/play pacifistic characters, so there are not enough pacifistic characters, so players don't request non-bashy quests, so DMs mostly run bashy quests...
Some kind of carrot to encourage people to submit that Az'attan zealot, and to give them something to look forward to in playing that character, could help break that cycle.
Now, whether we need more pacifistic characters is a whole 'nother issue, and I still have the reservations I noted in my first post (and I also appreciate Row's and Dorg's comments as well)... but just my perspective on things.