Enabling Conflict

[Temi]

I would like to note that the new recommend bit isn't to indicate anyone is doing things wrong. Instead, it is to call out those who find great ways around this tough problem, because it helps rp for everybody.

So too isn't it a request solely to good guys or a suggestion to ignore conflicts so you don't squish them. In fact, ignoring people creating conflicts kills the conflict too! A conflict has two sides, and it needs both to create rp for anyone. Plus, what we really want is enabling conflicts. It can be on any side of the issue.

If anyone has ideas on how to engage a conflict, participate in it and make it more fun for all, those sort of suggestions are even better than just not stifling it - which is good too, sure, but can feel a little more accusatory and less about fun rp.

[Rabek]

Heresy isn't something that you build up to. Like "sin twenty times and now you're a heretic!" It's got its own definition as a sin. Upgrading crimes like that isn't super helpful for anyone on either side of the conflict line.

I would argue the exact opposite here. Repeatedly committing higher level sins over and over again, refusing to repent/change your actions at all could be argued to be heresy. Not only that, but it's a fairly standard thing that if you keep repeating the same crimes your punishment goes up.

Heresy has an actual definition as per 'help heresy'. It's an actual rejection of some or all of Davism. Sinning doesn't mean you reject Davism. Even if you do it a lot. But further discussion should probably go in its own thread, since this was just an example.

[Voxumo]

I don't have alot to say on this, at least not what I haven't said before in other topics relating to this. However I do have one thing different to say. Even if there is a character who gets under you character's skin, and who your character generally avoids... Be open to the possibility of that one day changing.
My prime example in this is Misune. There was a character who I never thought Misune would get along with again, especially after what they did to him at the worst of times... However after some lengthy and somewhat forced rp, for a plot, Misune did eventually manage to make amends with said character, and begin to even trust them. And I am certainly glad I was open to this line of rp, for it brought new rp I didn't expect.

[BattleJenkins]

Unfortunately I think a lot of the problems stem from the theme and from certain character concepts just not being viable without going counter to the mood of the game - I, for example, would love to play as part of a group of troublesome but bumbling bandits who are played for laughs, but since this is a fairly dark and brutal game, it doesn't really make sense for them to get away with repeated botched ransoms or petty thievery and vandalism without ending up running out of limbs. I would never ask TI:L to become something it's not - and a Studio Ghibli film it isn't, no-siree - but I do think it might be helpful to try to find a theme-appropriate niche for benign troublemakers and carve out a more comfortable space for them.

Part of the problem, I think, is that our playerbase is fairly small, and the power scales up all the way to figures like De Facto King of The Realm and Master of All Economic Activity and Supreme Enforcer of All Laws - so when you pick on some innocent victim even harmlessly, that victim is probably only two or three degrees away from Kevin Bacon, as it were, where Kevin Bacon is a guildleader. Even if, realistically, the Grand Inquisitor or Justiciar would probably never be made aware of petty crimes or minor troubles, in the game I feel like they not only are almost always made aware of it, but criticized if they don't personally take action - and, being so powerful, have the resources to completely shut the conflict down, leading to that ugly catch-22 lawfuls face. Unfortunately, giving these powerful roles to players is a big part of TI's playstyle and culture, and I'm not sure the game would be the same without it.

[Dice]

Maybe that's where we need to focus: the IC culture of criticism, particularly as it exists in rumors (where it is BRUTAL and UGLY and I think almost all of us do it.) It seems people feeling criticized for failing to act, or for failing to act sternly enough, is a big contributor to going after even small crimes with a vengeance? So maybe we can try to personally commit to being less spiteful in rumors about authority figures' performance of their jobs, especially when there might be such OOC factors in mind?

EDIT: I figured I should say more; while I don't want GLs/guilds being let off the hook when they do NOTHING, it's somewhere between "damn hard" and "impossible" to handle all of the cases that come to the Knights/Order/Reeves successfully or in a timely fashion. So it's mostly that kind of rumor use I'm thinking about.

[Gerolf]

For me to feel like we need to appreciate what people already do. I really do think the current batch of lawfuls let people get away with a whole lot more than they probably should and I don't really know what more -I- personally can do.

I would be more than willing to talk through any recent case from the last year to try and find out how any of you think it should have been handled differently. Most of us are open to suggestions, with in reason.

[BattleJenkins]

One thing I wanted to touch on a bit but haven't gotten around to yet - I feel like there aren't a whole lot of opportunities for low-stakes conflict in the game, both because of issues we already discussed (I.E. disproportionate resources and the potential for disproportionate response) and another issue I'd like to bring up.

Generally speaking, the elites of the city all get along or at least try their best to stay on good terms, and have formed a loose coalition I will hereby be referring to as 'The Get-Along Gang'. My character, the current Grand Magnate, is definitely a conscious and willful member of this group, I will admit - actively working to stay in the good graces of the city's other elites is a huge component of his tenure as a guildleader, but I feel like all of the city's current lawful leaders exhibit this sort of strategy. They all 'Get Along', so if one of them is slighted, attacked, or worked against, they can effectively call on the aid of the city's other elites to protect themselves. Internal bickering in the Get-Along Gang is extremely rare, and is quickly shut down collectively by the other members before it gets out of control and threatens the cohesion of the whole group. This behavior repeats as a microcosm in each guild - a few powerful elites collectively sticking up for each other so they can shut down opposition from without. And, since this is Dark Medieval Times, there are few meaningful checks on these sorts of cabals of power.

I'm not sure how common this ever was, or if it used to be more common but now isn't, but I've only very rarely seen inter-guild conflicts between factions we now consider to be on the same 'side' - no wealthy Merchants undermining the Reeves who dare try to enforce sumptuary on them, no Order butting heads with the Physicians because they decided to start freely offering contraceptive concoctions, or anything like that. If any sort of conflict of this type pops up, it tends to get resolved quietly, misunderstandings are cleared up, compromises are reached, and genuinely offending parties are quickly shut down, thanks to the cooperation of the Get-Along Gang. On one hand, this is the mark of a civilized society performing well its duties, and it'd be tiresome if every interaction in the game was bogged down in needless antagonism. On the other hand, we don't always want things to go smoothly in a game centered around conflict!

Part of the reason these sorts of relatively low-stakes conflicts don't happen often (I say low-stakes because careers, resources, and reputations are not on the same level as lives being on the line!) is because the city's various organizations have no reason not to work together. You don't see a lot of factions that might have regularly conflicting interests, even if they have similar goals. I think a good analogy of what we're missing here might be political parties or corporations competing in the same field. Even though they oppose each other, they have relatively low stakes in their competition as compared to the life-or-death struggle of the order versus the mages or the thieves versus the reeves, they meet on relatively even footing, and they are all considered equally 'lawful' even if they occasionally resort to underhanded tactics to get an edge on each other. I feel like TI:L is severely lacking in these sorts of struggles - fighting for a bigger slice of the pie, rather than trying to make sure their enemies starve to death on no pie at all. And on the rare occasion this sort of confrontation does arrive, the balance of power becomes heavily tipped in favor of whichever side manages to gain the favor of the Get-Along Gang as soon as one or more of them get involved.

I am not sure how we might go about addressing this, though - I certainly don't want to see the various guilds that are already established start going after each other over every little thing, but I'm not sure we have the playerbase to support fragmenting us even further into more factions, however they might be framed. This, too, is also something compounded by theme - TI:L's world is one of absolutes.

[BattleJenkins]

Oh, and something else I want to add! Apologies for the double post, but I wanted to avoid too many edits...

If I ever come across as overly critical of the way things are set up, I just want to emphasize: TI:Legacy is, by far, the best run RPI game I have ever played or tried, and it's a testament to the health of our community that we can have a discussion like this at all. At the game I played before this one, personal attacks from the staff and between players would have shut the discussion down before the end of the second or third post. By no means do I think the game is doing bad, and I am so grateful that we can have really mature, level-headed discussions like these on how we can make it better.

I also want to make it clear that I don't think any of the problems we're having are anyone's 'fault', and I think everyone is doing their best to RP realistically and are doing so spectacularly - I think it's more that our problems are an unintentional result of the way things might be set up. After all, here I am lamenting the problems caused by the existence of our 'Get-Along Gang' while also willfully playing its most Get-Along-iest member!

[Voxumo]

*Chuckles* Oh, if only you were playing about a year or two ago, you might be whistlin a different tune.
There have been times when various guilds just can't get along. Most famously is Reeves and Knights constantly stepping on each others toes and bickering about whose jurisdiction a case falls under. Another example was Inquisitors giving orders to knights that ended up putting knights in compromising positions, such as being ordered to search southside, resulting in death.
There have been cases of what you are talking about, however I do agree that in recent times the various Guilds have kind of reached a 'peace' stage, where it's not constantly bickering but instead working together for the betterment of Lithmore.

[The_Last_Good_Dragon]

I had this big huge reply reply written up that I've since deleted, but I'll simply state this: to me, the best way to enable conflict is to use coded commands as a last resort. Sending out a city-wide messenger when a demon or mage is spottec show-off should happen many motes into a scene. Leaving a scene should come when all expressions of your characters tolerance have been exhausted. Take face-to-face action wherever you can, try not to decide another characters rp for them when they're off screen unless they've given you no alternative.