Both the Ebonguard and the Harbingers have very easy to climb ladders regarding ranks.

Both are also the smallets guilds in Glomdoring.

I do not think that is an issue.





Good idea and Done!

I was sort of hoping that maybe we could hear their views on why their structure works, and we could decide for ourselves what, if any, ideas were applicable, rather than arguing with them about whether or not they are.

Sure, fine, but if you want that, you should ask that they don't have implied insults in those responses.

However obviously, the answer is that the Ur'guard don't create a "toxic" environment.

So first you have to find out what exactly, does create "a toxic" environment.

It is pretty clear what does. The constant rilvarly, backstabbing, and thinly veiled hatred and contempt for other members and groups in an organization provide just that atmosphere.

Yeah, I just let it go. I'm more interested in the information.



Well, this isn't obvious to me, and that's why I'm asking. I'm trying to get away from the sort of community navel-gazing and ask another organization with reasonably strong, "oppressive" RP what they think they're doing that works.

I've already heard all the philosophical speculation from the Glomdoring side, and I have zero interest in hearing more of it. We've got an organization that enforces a strong, evil RP, and does not have the same issues. I'm just interested in hearing why they think that is. Whether or not those things will apply to us is a different story, but I think there's value in hearing how they do it.

the ebonguard's advancement was recently overhauled, and even before this ooc meeting among glomdoring we decided that we would be redoing all of the most advanced "tasks" entirely

the ebonguard as i have hinted at in many places.. lacks culture. it lacks identity, unity, and everything assocated with either for the most part. how the hell do you fix such a thing? it doesn't come down to any set up or tasks. it just comes down to the people there and what they want to do together. glomdoring is a parallel in that even if it was the -perfect- guild/commune... if people weren't feeling it and working with one another... the collective wouldn't be perceived as succeeding (or something people would want to jump into)

Early on in the game the Moondancers were considered to have an "oppressive" RP. We were considered fanatical and there was much animosity between Guild Leaders and Commune Leaders. You could argue that the Moondancers were not evil but I don't believe Glomdoring is evil. And if actions are to be judged we were fanatical to a point that could be considerd evil. The difference between the Moondancers and Glomdoring is that the population of the Moondancers was about equivelent to 80% of what all of Glomdoring is now. The peak play time was much longer and it was not unusual for the Moondancers alone to have 20+ people logged in.

So, are you saying the only difference between the Moondancers and Glomdoring is that the Moondancers had more people? That's it?

I mean, that might be it! I'm just curious. It takes numbers to make numbers, but how did those numbers get there in the first place, and why did they stay?

I don't think thats it but I think it certainly helps. The Moondancers also had personalities. There was a lot of friction early on when Merloch was GM but most of his enemies left the guild. He was replaced by Ibby who was a cult like figure. And I don't mean that in a bad way but in a very good way. She was like a mini-Daevos for the Moondancers. No matter your opinion everyone loved Ibby and looked up to her. The Seren Zerg jokes aren't just jokes. I don't know why Glomdoring isn't getting numbers but when you aren't getting numbers not keeping them becomes magnified. You came blame RP for why people don't stay but you can't blame it for why people don't come in the first place. I honestly don't know why people came off the boat in droves for the Moondancers but they sure as heck aren't for us.

Part of the toxic atmosphere is that Glomdoring values freedom less then any other organization.

Less than Magnagora? Are we talking personal freedom? I remember the big ruckus in Serenwilde when no one wanted the Leaves because 'rules' were against nature. The Moondancers didn't have that problem because we had an oath dedicated to service. You earned the personal right to freedom through service in the Guild. For a while GR advancement was limited if you did not agree to certain terms.

That may be all changed now but when it was in place we had no problem attracting large numbers.

Maybe you should just try to make an alt in Celest or Seren and try to see for yourself what is different?


@Amarysse: We did talk face to face.

Not a bad idea, although I'd probably make a Mag alt. Not because Celest and Seren aren't successful, but because Mag has a relatively... for lack of a better phrase... oppressively dark RP to it and might have dealt with issues similar to ours in that respect.

veyda, if you believe that then you are truly out of touch. i sat there and watched a shade (CR1) tell kaervas if he didn't like her attitude that -he- should leave the commune. i then pulled her aside and tried to explain something to her to try to save her from inevitable trouble and she snubbed me.... what do you think befell her? she was warned not to do it again. not a damn thing more. that sounds like freedom to do just about whatever you damn well please to me

I think it might be important to clarify what you mean by oppressive. For example I see the Magnagoran oppressive as a personal kind of oppressive. They have a very rank concious society where those on the bottom have no actual rights and those on the top are free to do almost whatever they wish within limits. Its an internal kind of oppresive RP that applies to interactions between citizens more than it applies to what external actions citizens can take. A Magnagoran would have to say why that works but I for the Ur'Guard I would say it works because the people joining there want to join a strict group of warriors and that kind of rank structure is just par for the course and gives the smaller ones something to strive for. They want to be on top and being on top is a pretty good place to be.

There are other kinds of oppressive as well. For example, most would argue that Celest is extremely oppressive. There are many more restrictions on what citizens can or cannot do (legally) than any other organization. But this is a more external kind of restriction and the laws are (in theory) applied equally across the board. If a peasant cannot hunt a creature then the King also cannot hunt that creature. Plus, the reasons for the oppression can usually be explained in some fashion or another. There are not too many just arbitrary restrictions. So I think there is a certain sense of civic pride that makes the restrictions on their playing something so many players accept willingly. A certain "Our city takes the high ground. Our city holds itself to this higher standard" kind of thing. "Higher" being a subjective term of course.

I also feel that everybody being in it together (both in Celest and Magnagora in terms of everyone having had to go through the maggot phase) helps create a sense of community. While "fairness" isn't something characters may necessarily value, the players do and it's something that's really hard to just do away with.

So my uninformed about your situation opinion would be that you need to determine what it is you want to be oppressive with, have very clear reasons why you're being oppressive in that area, and communicate those reasons. It also helps if everybody is being oppressed equally. If its the Magnagoran flavor of oppression then everyone starts at the bottom and claws their way up. If it's the Celestian flavor, the restrictive rules and punishments are applied equally (at least in public). Having a "greater good" that you're making these oppressive sacrifices for helps as well. Though that can be a pretty vague concept. The "Light" isn't exactly the clearest of doctrines after all and very few Celestians actually agree on what it means but as long as it's there as this overarching ideal, it works out well enough.

I think he means something along the lines of one of those CHELP files..

'You breathe FOR THE GLORY OF GLOMDORING.
You work FOR THE GLORY OF GLOMDORING.
You exist FOR THE GLORY OF GLOMDORING.'

etc etc

But what does that even mean? No one can do anything at all unless it's for the direct benefit of the Glomdoring?

That's the good stuff, though. We need to figure out a way to keep that stuff.

@Cat: It means Glomdoring is more important than any other consideration in your life. We have a phrase that expresses that sentiment, somewhere.

I think Magnagora's oppressiveness works because you don't live with that forever. Once you work up rank and prove that you are worthy of freedom, you are allowed that freedom. From what I gather of Glomdoring, even those who are in a high rank feel that they need to watch themselves with what they say and do. There does not seem to be a way to gain freedom in Glomdoring.
(I don't have a glom character, I'm just stating what I can gather from other people.)

I agree. Being part of a collective is one of Glom's unique draws and fosters a sense of unity. The problem arises when leaders, for the sake of their own power, claim that actions they don't like are not 'for the Glory of Glomdoring.' For example contesting a leader should never be considered treason.

As an aside, I think Glom may attract LESS true novices than the other four organizations because of the concept and the art. Looking at the website, concepts of Light, Taint, and 'forest with Wiccans' are easy to understand. Most players identify with Light and 'forest with Wiccans' quicker thus I think this is why Celest and Serenwilde have a bigger initial novice draw. Pictures for the merian aquamancers are pretty too, and this is why I think the aquamancers get a bumper crop of novices all the time.