Evenin Nightspawn

[Ken14]

The suggestion is simple: Evenin, the Flesh Golem. He's closured, but not dead.

I've had at least several people proclaim they'd love to have the deranged Flesh Golem spawn at night at random. In Barovia, or all over the Core

I give full permission for DM's to play and/or spawn him. Have it vanish into mist upon death or somesuch?

[remnar]

I'd say no.  For a very VERY good reason!
 
Lots of people want to leave their mark on the server.  A mark like this, so visible AND reactive as it is an actual thing, is a big deal!  It'll be super obvious and plain that this isn't just an MPC or random occurrence this was another player's mark on the server, added at a time when many people feel the world is unchanging and unable to have marks left on it by their own characters.

And everyone will want something like this.  If they give Evenin special treatment, the next time someone wants to be added to the world (as an npc or somesuch) for closuring, they'll use this as a precedent.  Think, right, that this happens - people can and will be able to plan around getting their own PC added to the world.  There's documented precedent of it happening!

You see 'cool thing to add' (and it is cool to add something of your own make to the server permanently!!), I see a lot of pain for the DM's and players that want something anything like this and don't get it.


Also, it sort of cheapens the MPC (and closure as a whole) if Evenin is still about, is able to be defeated, and when he is defeated he just escapes into the mists.  What is cool the first few times soon becomes boring and tiresome.  Especially when you defeat this powerful thing and all you get is a "he poofed away try again next time loser xD" equivalent.

[Grandeur Accepted]

I'm for it and I'd be all for other players leaving their mark with this shared narrative. But it's unlikely to happen because there is too much fear of showing favoritism to people that the most you can really get out of your closure is a book.

While PotM may be a persistent world, there's a whole little that persists in the world from players, and even DMs. While the actors might change on the stage, the backdrop will hardly ever change.

[Doktor Scarecrow]

At most I'd accept them as someone controlled by a dm for a plot or something. Making them a spawn would cheapen what Evenin became after a while. But then again this is all ignoring the fact that it would set a precedent, some people would want their characters to be present after closure and that would lead to arguments etc about who deserves what.

[Christmas Birdman]

I don't think this would be the first time a PC has become a NPC Boss monster. I would be for it as a 'Boss' for the random mist encounters or something like a baby Mist dragon or something.

Roaming bosses is a neat idea altogether.

or even in a new dungeon.

[Ervin267]

I like this idea a lot personally and I regularly walk the mists. I think people looking for the fight will take it and other wise jaunt or continue to be ethereal. Maybe have him hang out somewhere as like a boss battle like the mist dragon.

[Zyemeth]

I'd be all for it. Anything to allow some more player input and contribution.

[gotesu]

I think it's a good way to reward antagonists in general.

[TwistyShape]

I'd like to see this or, at least something Similar. As someone above mentioned above it may be a pain for the DMs, which I understand is true, it also gives something for players to strive for. Showing that, with dedication, skill and a decent amount of luck you can actually make a ripple on the world so large that even after your character or, infact, the player leaves that something is there to remember them by. And frankly, we should remember characters who came and went, its what we do IRL after all.

An old server I used to play on added "Dolls" to the loot table with certain signifiant characters names and a fitting description, which I still stand by is one of the best ways of remembering old characters/players. It also adds an almost TCG element to the loot if you want to collect them all. Perhaps this could be something we might add instead of NPCs? Its simple, effective and adds a little nod to those whom came before us without causing entire new code to be written.

Either way, while I understand pushback due to perceived favortism, whats wrong with a little favortism? If a player has shown they are capable of crafting a story with the limited tools they have, thats so inspiring that it can leave a mark on the very world we inhabit, this should be rewarded.

[Skelni]

...whats wrong with a little favortism?...

That it can make a lot of backlash to the perceptions of others?

"Why did this guy get this special attention and a reward and I did not?"

Opens up a world of issues, mistrust and more expectancy. Everyone desires to be treated equally.

[TwistyShape]

...whats wrong with a little favortism?...

That it can make a lot of backlash to the perceptions of others?

"Why did this guy get this special attention and a reward and I did not?"

Opens up a world of issues, mistrust and more expectancy. Everyone desires to be treated equally.

Yeah, perhaps that was a little bit of naivety from myself in terms of my perceptions of favortism. Can't apply that to everyone.

[MAB77]

I'd be all for it. Anything to allow some more player input and contribution.

Yes, its been done in the past. Usually for very legitimate reasons and with the best interest of the module at heart, but it still made malcontents and left us open to accusations of favoritism each time it happened. However deserving you feel it may be, why should this player gets a character turned into an NPC but not others? It can't be done for all players, let alone all characters. Experience taught us it's best not to do it at all.

As for input and contributions. There are already a lot of ways players can help and contribute. The Dev team regularly ask for help in fleshing out and devising new content. Just for instance, right now we are looking to create a series of items for the upcoming shaman class. Pertaining to PCs directly, the Vault of Remembrance was purposefully created as a mean for all players to leave an account of their character's passage on the module and preserve some lore as to their deeds and actions. Evenin's story would be a great addition there. Someone need but write it and submit the book.

[blackpage]

Yes, its been done in the past. Usually for very legitimate reasons and with the best interest of the module at heart, but it still made malcontents and left us open to accusations of favoritism each time it happened.

This is where I'd like to see the development team deviate from the current philosophy. Who cares what people think about favoritism, there will always be fragile egos. Hell, accusations of favoritism get thrown around even when you follow this methodology of trying to be all inclusive. Why not give it a try before dismissing it, you can always remove something later if it becomes problematic.

And the truth is, not everyone's characters add to the "horror" element of the server, a vast majority don't. Evenin' did, I think if any character would be worthy of a monstrous NPC nod in game, they would be one of them. +1.

[Crowl]

I'm all for it, let people fight Evenin again. Should provide a challenge for all the high level peeps wanting to test themselves or seek out the greatest challenge in the mists. Bonus points if it happens when no one is expecting it.

"But that would be unfair"

Such things have happened in the past. In the spirit of fairness one could ask to remove those things that have happened already then, but we don't. In the long past PotM used to be more dynamic with player actions changing the environment, areas being updated to reflect this. It still happens to a much lesser degree. Someone's golden days are now frozen in time as our immutable canon. I don't see the harm in having something like this happen.

It's a minor thing. It's not a new domain, anything that would reflect a change in the setting, like changing the way Barovia or Dementlieu are ruled (Can you imagine? Changing that?).

It's a random spawn, hostile NPC that would be very hard to kill. That seems like fun.

[Madame Trousers Son]

No. It's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. If people are going to start one-upping each other in vying for dev and DM attention in order to be the new immortalised A/MPC, this creates the wrong sorts of incentives.

Play for yourself. Play for your audience. Don't create the expectation that a good A/MPC deserves to be immortalised by anyone else.

[KovosDatch]

I'd rather see Evenin become like a new Headless Horseman. More DM controlled and just as terrifying. To make him a mist spawn cheapens Evenin in my opinion.

And the "favoritism" argument falls flat for me. Favoritism already happens, so what's one more drop in the bucket?

[bloodless]

PCs becoming NPCs that are sometimes wheeled out by DMs is one thing, but turning them into mobs to just be killed out in the wild? I don't like it, either as a one off or as a precedent for something going forward.

[Ken14]

To make things clear : I did rather mean this in the vein of a DM-controlled ( or DM-Spawned?) NPC sorta thing. Not just a random AI-spawn.

Apologies if that wasn't clear.

[HellsPanda]

Speaking from experience, the best legacy you can leave for an already dead/closured character, is in the memory of the people their story impacted. Continuation will cheapen the ending, and benefit no one. Better for the DMs to instead make new and interesting Antagonists, for new stories.

[Inti]

I'm for it and I'd be all for other players leaving their mark with this shared narrative. But it's unlikely to happen because there is too much fear of showing favoritism to people that the most you can really get out of your closure is a book.

While PotM may be a persistent world, there's a whole little that persists in the world from players, and even DMs. While the actors might change on the stage, the backdrop will hardly ever change.

So true.


There are viable and balanced ways around it if there is enough will and time resources though. Lack of change shows that neither is present in sufficient amounts with regards to this, so it's a bit of a non-argument at present.


I actually really like the idea of PCs turning into NPCs  (though not mobs), favouritism fears aside.


POTM is a 'persistent lite' server in terms of mechanics. It is a design choice that is hard-baked into many aspects of how it functions and cannot be easily changed.

However, I would be very much behind PCs leaving a trace of their existence in the form of books and records (already happens, though not consistently), altering the environment (has happened via factions on a few occasions in the past) or gravestones and memorials.

The last point may be seen as unworkable due to team resources lacking to deal with potentially very many such 'gravestone' requests, but

1. Permadeath is actually not that common an occurrence on the server.

2. A memorial/gravestone mechanic can be created, perhaps given to certain PCs/factions (e.g. clerics or gravekeepers) to prevent abuse - where a name can be permanently added to a communal stone memorial or, in more special cases and needing more people/gold/resources to achieve, a gravestone can actually permanently materialize.


I think there are ways to do this that will be balanced, side-step favouritism fears and not cause undue burden on the team, but the 'stars will have to align' for this to actually take place - i.e. someone will have to have the time to think this through and implement it, on top of the very many things the team are already constantly doing behind the scenes.

[cheese tornado]

I'm too old to get bent out of shape about favoritism. Evenin was a memorable character, both alive and .. well, dead, ish. I say yes. A fitting end for his legacy.

[myrddraal]

Speaking from experience, the best legacy you can leave for an already dead/closured character, is in the memory of the people their story impacted. Continuation will cheapen the ending, and benefit no one. Better for the DMs to instead make new and interesting Antagonists, for new stories.

This is the point of closure.  New heroes, new villains, and while we pass down word of their deeds it’s best that the new kids have their shot rather than be constantly overshadowed by past characters.  We all loved Evenin, but aside from a rare and fitting event, let him rampage through the mist.

[EO]

Well, to start off, we do sometimes turn PCs into NPCs, both the development and the DM team have to vote on it, and the key criteria is how does it enrich and contribute to the world. If a DM wants to use a closured PC (with the player's permission), then they put it to a vote; it's generally easier to become a DM-controlled NPC than being added to the module.

If we convert a PC into a module NPC, or retain some legacy, as mentioned, it has to enrich the world, add something that's missing. A few years ago I was in talk with a player (before we added the class) that wanted their Voodan PC to open a Voodan shop in Dementlieu, a very cool concept. We could have turned the PC into a NPC as a fixture since it would have added something; however the player didn't want to let go of the character, so it fizzled.

And we do have a few memorials, and places where we can and do list the names of dead PCs. The Ezrite Mausoleum in Vallaki is such an example, that we update from time to time when Ezrites kill a memorable villain/MPC. However, over time, just like any other grave markers, the names become meaningless, just random names one passes by. After all, who actually remembers or is affected by Adeon Pappas? Who remembers the plots the PC was involved in? And in the end those who do remember the PC don't need a memorial or a grave marker.

Finally, while I don't want to go into detail about this specific case, I'd be very uncomfortable "rewarding" a MPC who, rather than closure at the hands of adventurers, stepped out of the role, which is the very opposite of closure. Doing so would encourage MPCs to hold onto their character, whereas we want them to take risks and enrich the world. The 6 months timer was added so they wouldn't want to live forever.

[William Roberts]

Spoiler: show

Well, to start off, we do sometimes turn PCs into NPCs, both the development and the DM team have to vote on it, and the key criteria is how does it enrich and contribute to the world. If a DM wants to use a closured PC (with the player's permission), then they put it to a vote; it's generally easier to become a DM-controlled NPC than being added to the module.

If we convert a PC into a module NPC, or retain some legacy, as mentioned, it has to enrich the world, add something that's missing. A few years ago I was in talk with a Voodan (before we added the class) that wanted their PC to open a Voodan shop in Dementlieu, a very cool concept. We could have turned the PC into a NPC as a fixture since it would have added something; however the player didn't want to let go of the character, so it fizzled.

And we do have a few memorials, and places where we can and do list the names of dead PCs. The Ezrite Mausoleum in Vallaki is such an example, that we update from time to time when Ezrites kill a memorable villain/MPC. However, over time, just like any other grave markers, the names become meaningless, just random names one passes by. After all, who actually remembers or is affected by Adeon Pappas? Who remembers the plots the PC was involved in? And in the end those who do remember the PC don't need a memorial or a grave marker.

Finally, while I don't want to go into detail about this specific case, I'd be very uncomfortable "rewarding" a MPC who, rather than closure at the hands of adventurers, stepped out of the role, which is the very opposite of closure. Doing so would encourage MPCs to hold onto their character, whereas we want them to take risks and enrich the world. The 6 months timer was added so they wouldn't want to live forever.

Thanks for the thorough response. Everything you said sounds 100 percent fair, accurate, and reasonable to me. 

[Ken14]

Finally, while I don't want to go into detail about this specific case, I'd be very uncomfortable "rewarding" a MPC who, rather than closure at the hands of adventurers, stepped out of the role, which is the very opposite of closure. Doing so would encourage MPCs to hold onto their character, whereas we want them to take risks and enrich the world. The 6 months timer was added so they wouldn't want to live forever.

I'm not.....entirely sure what you seem to mean by that last part? I was about 4 months in on my timer. And yes, it was a closure.

I continually attacked very public places, and fought literal swarms of PC's. I roleplayed while I was being attacked. Not an easy feat, with a non-stealthy, very obvious MPC.

Were there moments I could've given up and let them kill me? Maybe. But that's not the point.

Closure does not automatically mean death. It is the end of the story. And Evenin's story within the Core was at an end, after the twists and turns that happened.

(I won't go into the OOC aspects of why I closured early, that's not really important at this time.)


On a more humorous note: Evenin was never meant to 'live forever'. The last three years, I've tried no less than 7 attempts to get him killed. Including a DM-controlled Bebilith that Evenin was supposed to get sacrificed to, but said Bebilith decided not to eat him, in the end.


I understand why the suggestion was a longshot. No hard feelings there. I just felt I needed to at least give my opinion on the closure part.



This topic is probably better off closed at this point.