RWG is pretty much spot on. All the great Lower movements since the Tigereyes have been lead by (usually) charasmatic PC radicals. The ones who went down in some truly memorable flames, from Tooth to Danielson and Guerini, ultimately failed to 'win' because they engaged Upper with conventional methods. All the romantic nonsense about heroic last stands and honorable duels really has to be thrown out the window when you're dealing with Lower. Three or four PCs based out of Sewertown could maybe keep the Watch out of Lower proper, and if they're careful, severely damage their operations in the Canal. It's definitely not easy, but extremely rewarding.

I will note that Lower as an institution does have some powerful NPC groups aligned with it, however. And certainly Lower has "won" plenty of times (you may note the lack of Watch patroling its streets as we speak).

QFT

The Watch had 'won' lower earlier through negociations. I mean under Fawkes' reign, it was sewer town or nothing for rebels. Lower was not chaotic. And look, it got wooped back to chaotic state.

There were multiple factions that tried to instigate some 'control' over lower, tribe of blade was one of them. They got abandonned due to lack of interest from the playerbase.

Ledskir/Dirty Nancy were waves of 'occupations' from NPC faction, and it was surely noticed that they were 'weak' with NPCs, but had a strong PC base and were intimidating to the law PCs. But still, interest dwindled... and they killed eachothers.

Who knows what will happen? Maybe an undead army will wipe out the Watch/Spellguard and you will have ghouls patrol the street of lower.

I am unsure what anyone means by "winning." If you mean that Lower will be controlling Upper, I really do not think that will ever happen, without lots and lots of stuff happening first. If you mean strong enough to take on Upper, that could happen, but it'd have to be like what RwG says. Lower is pretty much 'free' right now, which is a win of sorts.

MadCaddies I'd take it back if I could!

We've been discussing possibilities for another chaotic faction based in Lower for some time. When and if we arrive at an agreement, you'll all be sure to know. For the moment though, appreciate that the seemingly powerful Upper factions will probably experience decline at some point; factional power balance is an entirely cyclical process.

Who says the stereotypes must remain? For instance, the Spellguard used to be VERY stereotypically LE. Nowadays, they aren't quite as evil, more LN-like. The Watch has waned from Lawful, to Neutral; from Neutral to Evil back and forth many times (as a collective group). The Seekers have had even crazier swaps. "Lower" as a whole has ALWAYS been chaotic, with a nice touch of evil. Lowersmen have become the absolute most stereotypical people in the server- and there's less than three hundred of them as opposed to 2000-ish. At least I think so.

Just tossing some little thoughts in the suggestion box!

I'd like to bring some RL history into this.

Okay, so you all know of the UK, right? Well, it used to be significantly less united. Once upon a time, there was this place called Scotland. It was significantly more awesome than England/Briton (whatever, I'm not nearly English enough to understand that distinction) but also less powerful. The Scottish independence and pride made Scotland beautiful, but the English ability to form organized groups and armies made them powerful.

More personally, William Wallace and Edward Longshanks. Ole Braveheart was clearly the superior guy, but Longshanks just plain had more people behind him.

It's not a question so much of winning, as of having the single most awesome people ever. In that case, Upper and Lower are at an impass, and I certainly hope that that the sides will stay that way.

I'd like to end this history lesson with a quote:

FREEDOM!!!!

holy crap, it seems iv'e started quite a stirring here! well as I said before, I have been trying to form a resistance for some time, however it keeps on getting crushed by people either being inactive or, more lately, trying to turn me in, (I'm Talking to YOU Vincent Tenn) anyways, if any of you genuinely want to help me form a guerilla-warfare based rebellion in the canal, then do send me a private message and perhaps we can set something up In-Game.

((To the Original poster, the rest of you taught me over the last year)) Upper vs. Lower does not equal good vs evil, or even law vs chaos. It is just not a blackhat vs whitehat thing. Only true distinciton between pc's in upper vs in lower, is that alot of the ones in upper tend to like to play dressup and wear matching uniforms...probably the downfall of the Nancies.. not that I prefer playing lowersmen or anything : :wink: Most of the player's have had char's alternatley in both places. It's cylical, and as a Watchman under Fawkes, and one of the dead from Guerini's Last Charge, it always changes. Worm will turn again, either by DM choice, or pc action, or both. Just play your PC, run your story, the rest will fall into place. If humans keep turning you in, look elswhere for ally's. Lots of folks(used loosely here) dislike the Watchies and Spelltyrants, you just need to find them.

If anything starts in Lower, it'll have to be the work of PCs.

The problem, which frustrates a lot of players, is that Lower is a fickle place, where people will 'stand by you' one day only to pretend never having met you in their life when your reign of chaos topples and dies. But these things are IC problems, based on IC reasons. There are ways to tilt Lower into assisting you and your friends. It's hard, but this is the Underdark.

Lower is seriously ripe for PC dominance at the moment. A decently-charismatic PC who figured out a way to bring people together would be running a lot of stuff down there very quickly.

Random_White_Guy

"We're surrounded by watch and upper dogs on two sides, Chosen on the third. We're backed into a corner, up against a wall. The Evil Opressor has just stolen our canal, and are using it to make profit while our children starve in the street, and our elderly die of disease. Rally, Brothers, and let us show these bastards what it means to be Lowerman!"

Lower needs a Leonidas!

"In EFU, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get... matching uniforms?"

Thanks Tony...

Lower is showing unity, they all wear the same flithy rags the slavers gave them to begin with. Its the number one hand me down in Lower.

Any time some one in Lower gains enough coin to buy some nice shiny clothing, whack! You're getting your brains beaten in by a couple of thugs.

I guess Lower is ripe for the picking, but its been that way time and time again. One new leader, and the next day they are running to Upper with a suicide vest screaming like a crazied zealot.

If you really want Lower, you're in for the longest and largest project on the server, and on top of that, you have to watch out for everyone that's gunning to take everything you have after the trash is swept away.

Nickless

Lower needs a Leonidas!

Nickless is right! Except for one problem:

I tried. Nwn mechanics make a spear/tower shield combo impossible, even though it was one of the most common weapon combos in history.

dragonfire9000 . . . The Scottish independence and pride made Scotland beautiful, but the English ability to form organized groups and armies made them powerful . . .

But yes, the English (and later the rest of Britian or most of it) eventualy made an empire that stretched across the globe because of their ability to work together. Something most lowers tend to have less of. As dead-bunny said, some one gets rich, they get killed. :D

The fact that they are eternal underdogs is what makes playing a 'patriotic' Lowersman even more fun.

- UnderdarkJedi

We're over looking something here.

Upper has money

Lower has fanaticism

Upper has numbers

Lower has bombs

Upper has spellguard

Lower has no organized militia.

Upper has a touchy conscious

Lower has terrorists

Upper has PC members supporting it all the way

Lower has....very few of the above.

I think we've got a problem with lower here.

I was reluctant to post this at first, but:

There is something to be said about player mentality here, too. Attempts to introduce NPCs have had a tendency to provoke players into passionately defending what they perceive to be threatened, whether that's the case or not. It's not incredibly entertaining to try and change things smoothly when a sufficiently large part of our playerbase gives the impression of having absolutely no interest in seeing their favourite playground ruined by change.

My proverbial two cents from what I have seen makes this the bottom line,

trying to turn me

Fact is lower dosn't unite. Lower has been very powerful at various times in their history. It still remains though that once you get six or eight peopletogether in a backroom in lower, they will just as likely stab you as work with you.

Often I think the problem with lower is the type of rulers people have tried to be recently. Not that a caster or a charsimatic bard can't rule lower, I just think it is harder. Lower likes to fight and if when your in the room with those eight other people you can't at least convince one of them that you can kill him/her easily, not much of a point.

Though I still believe anything is possible in EFU. Maybe I am a idealist but I honestly 100% believe that if 3 or 4 pcs are adimant and patient enough to reshape lower, they can absouetly shape it in any image they want.

One of the harder issues to over come in lower is the "True" son of lower idea. Upper is pretty open on where you come from, slavery, upper, lower, what have you. Several lower pcs have arguments, fights, and outright murders over the idea that someone was not either born in lower or lived there long enough.

Lower to me is alot like a post ireland versus england football (soccer for americans) game brawl. The game is over, no matter how many times you punch the others fans the score won't change, but that dosn't stop you from doing it :).

Snoteye I was reluctant to post this at first, but:

There is something to be said about player mentality here, too. Attempts to introduce NPCs have had a tendency to provoke players into passionately defending what they perceive to be threatened, whether that's the case or not. It's not incredibly entertaining to try and change things smoothly when a sufficiently large part of our playerbase gives the impression of having absolutely no interest in seeing their favourite playground ruined by change.

That said, I certainly understand a future reluctance-but am curious about the problems.

Often, when something like this occurs-it isn't as much that something changed (although there is always a Who Moved my Cheese mentality in some players) but often the problem may have developed from how the DMs attempted to enact the change.

Did they incorporate players in it? When the new NPC showed up, did he recruit players and involve them in his agenda? Or was the new NPC fully fleshed out with his own NPC support and in a manner that was immediately oppositional to players and/or already better positioned? Did the NPC begin as a henchmen\ally\sponsor to a PC that was trying to arrange something, and then take over when that PC died off and/or did he then incorporate that PC's other PC allies/henchmen?

In other words, there is a way to handle this that works and one that doesn't. I can't say for sure which route the DMs here handled that didn't work--I could comment extensively on the Tribe of the Blade--but I don't think that was what was being referenced by Snoteye here.

You can't talk about Lower without talking about Ubel, and the thing that seems to really distinguish Lower from Upper is that for Lower, the Ubel Rebellion never had a satisfactory conclusion.

Lower seems possessed of same spirit as the Confederate holdovers from the American South, determined to one day rise again generations after their defeat on the battlefield. Lower has an institutional commitment to a political movement that, in the last analysis, really wasn't such a good idea to begin with.

At some point, the Ubel Rebellion degenerated into a hazy notion of the War of Yankee Upper Aggression, and it's at that point that Lower's reason to exist lost any connection with reality. The problem is no longer resolvable through reasonable means. We're at a point now where, from the point of view of Upper, Lower must either be assimilated or destroyed outright.

Let's face it, the idea of a free and lawless area of the Underdark independent of ties to any other community is, quite frankly, insane.

Oroborous ... some comments.

And no, I was not talking about the Tribe of the Blade. I'm also not thinking of the goblin tribe in the Canal Wards since that one was pretty much meant to be taken out.

My personal opinion on the matter is that a slow change is not going to work well, simply because it allows players to respond to a potential threat before the situation evolves. If we wanted to dramatically change Lower, I think it would take a force similar to the Tigereyes that is large enough to control all of Lower, and it would have to be introduced over a short period of time.

I tend to think that most players didn't know how to ally to a gang, and none of the gang's certainly tried to recruit influential players to their organization.

The sense I get as a player sometimes is that the NPCs and PCs almost exist in their own realms and often act independently of one another in pursuit of goals. Occasionally, players will try to ally to NPCs--but NPCs never try to ally to players. In my experience at least, which I tend to think is fairly wide spread and long term.

Take this as a suggestion, but correcting this may help with some of the problems you've seen.

Lower Sanctuary is a facet of what Sanctuary is. It does have its own unique flare. Yet the server was not set up with the intention of two equal and competing cities duking it out. Upper Sanctuary holds the cards and it's part of Lower Sanctuary's identity in accepting or rejecting that.

that sounds good, I can roll with that, er, the offer still stands with the whole rebellion thing, I'd really like to do it but so far only three people have offered help, one of which was only advice, one was temporary help with assassinating, and only one seems permenant.

Lower is open and ripe for take-over. My last char would've taken control if he wasn't murdered by a particularly well-known Watchman.

Lower is a ripe fruit waiting to be plucked!

Forgive me if I sound a bit harsh, especially for someone new, but...

Why are people asking for a DM to hold their hand?

You've got a server where the staff is telling you that they've placed the story's evolution in the hands of players. Players have shaped that story for years and will continue to do so. You don't need (nor would benefit from) DM's pulling a deus ex machina. It would ruin immersion and rob you of the accomplishment of doing it on your own.

DM assistance in providing interactions with the background NPC environment in your player-inspired and player-driven efforts, however, is entirely sensible and would be awesome. That's really the ideal role of the DM.

If you want to make a group of PC's to change Lower, do it. The tools for doing so are already in your hands. The story to date is a product of character actions and is going to continue to be so.

Now, from an IC perspective, I'd diagnose (and have) the problem Lower faces as being pretty much what Morbid Dread already said. Its PC character base has been fanaticized to an extent that they are acting emotionally rather than rationally in ways that are insane from both a strategic as well as tactical perspective.

Actually, I happen to think that Lower offers a fairly classic insurgency/counter-insurgency situation. The situation has drug on long enough that, were we being realistic, Upper could actually claim Lower itself if they start utilizing well tested counter-insurgency tactics from the real world. There's no real ethnic or religious basis for the division... its entirely economic and philosophical (far more maleable conditions). The NPC non-insurgent population would, if we want to be realistic, have economic concerns which would override the philosophical fanaticism of the PC insurgents, afterall.

But I suppose my point is that the DM's here seem to be extraordinarily generous when it comes to PLAYER-driven storymaking. Lower's fate remains very much in the hands of players, which is why I don't understand the desire for a holding hand. To the extent that might need an OOC element, it might be a decision by players to roll characters with a bit more strategic and tactical savvy than to perform frontal assaults. The suggestion made above concerning a more guerilla style of warfare would fit very well.

Tip for the day: Seems lower gets several groups all rising at the same time. Then the bid for power comes....Rather than tossing off the reigns of upper oppresion, the groups manage to kill each other off. That or weaken each other so badly that team law comes and lays a smackdown on the remnants.

Look at the Tigereyes...they had their grubby mits in everything. They also held some good allies, both known and unknown.

Unity is the key, and the ability to work all the angles!

P.S. Oro...Our whole management staff had to read "Who Moved My Cheese" sorta made me lol...mainly because even though we all had to read it...it was pretty obvious who it was aimed at in the staff. Sadly, he couldn't figure it out. I am proud to say, my devious EFU sk1lz better equiped me to PWN his job while making it look like it was anyone but me who did it XD

Rocking thread.

Charm Rocking thread.

lol. Thread necromancy! House Montezzi rules.

Pup

Charm Rocking thread.

lol. Thread necromancy! House Montezzi rules.

Thread Necromancy, Pup Rules!

I would not mind some real discussion on this topic, but please stay on topic. =)

I think the last month or so has shown just how volatile the server can be in terms of who has power and where that power is centred. It just goes to show that change will happen, even if we have to be dragged kicking and screaming. No way does Upper currently hold the balance of power.

I'll admit I'm surprised (pleasantly actually) that the Montezzi faction has held and grown stronger. Lower has never felt more dangerous to me than it has in the past weeks.

It's all good, and all players involved should pat themselves on the back for the excitement and plotty stuff going on.

Interesting timing for this thread to be resurrected.

It also kind of dove-tails with this thread IMO. It certainly makes the story arc much more understandable. I'll have to post a link to this thread in the other one.

The recent outbreak of House Montezzi, to me, revives the question of NPC support.

Far as I know, there are plenty of beggars and poor people helping/working for the Montezzi in construction, etc. However, no thugs, warriors or other sort of lower people have offered to sign up. Since the Montezzi have been around so long, and since the only way one can be around Lower and hold a weapon without getting "WTF PWND" is by being a member of the House, I would say it is odd that there is no "Montezzi Guard" standing outside the fortress. Or atleast a few Montezzi endorsed thugs wandering the streets to enforce the tyrannic laws. Hm?

We're not tyrannic. :( Just controversial.

*roll bluff check*

*smiles charmingly to him* Of course you are.

LOL. When I made this topic, I didn't exactly have house Montezzi in mind. It was more in retaliation against the watch and spellguard taking the canal..... Still, It's not bad.

See, that's all it takes is someone with a bit of luck, and the drive to make something happen. Granted it might be a bit more difficult to raise an empire or successful player faction in lower then simply join the SG or watch. But when it gets pulled off, wow.

As an aside, player a SG Agent is incredibly interesting just lately due to House Montezzi, kudos gentlemen for livining up the day :)