You say, "the fear of death is the entire point of a permadeath game". Well, okay, if that's the entire point, then people are doing what they should. They are avoiding any and all conflict because they are avoiding any and all risk of death.
If the entire point of a game is fear of death, then nothing ever gets done, period. People are simply too afraid and unmotivated to do anything.
This is misconstruing the statement. The statement says that you, the player, are avoiding risky situations and thus not enjoying the game by diving into conflict out of fear that you could lose your character, or lose your plot, as a result. So instead, you play passively. However, the in-character world, while risk-averse, necessitates some brutality...unless everyone is doing the same thing, which is what we've come to and is now being discussed.
Drawing a line between those two dots isn't what the statement was about, which I think you understood just fine and wanted to say something witty and turn-against-you like.
If you think I'm advocating for no killing ever, then you clearly didn't read my post. What I did advocate for is a better scale. Things shouldn't be black and white, where black is INSTA DEATH NOW and white is SMILE AND BE FRIENDS. If you want to kill people, that can be a valid solution. But let's please stop trying to make it the only solution.
It isn't the only solution. Other solutions are come to often in the game. I experience them often. I use them often. As a matter of fact, there are often things that occur that are small escalations, over and over, until someone dies, and then that is often portrayed as the only escalation that happened. That is what I'm combatting here, is the simplification of the game to 'Everyone just kills everything and it's not fun!'
That's not true. It's not remotely true. People do die, and people do kill each other. But as noted, this is not a proving grounds.
As things stand, there is a player habit of turning to murder as the first and best option to avoid all other conflict and risk. Because this is the first thing people turn to, all too often people will not take any risks at all. They will not make any conflict at all.
...are you actually asserting that jumping into combat with people with political connections and combat skills is -avoiding- risk? That setting up assassinations is risk free? Because that's what I was saying to you; resolving conflict is not bad. Not bad at all. If conflicts are engagements between you and another force with differing goals or ideologies, resolution is kind of the point.
I played a character recently where I warred with a faction and people got dead. But strangely enough, it actually de-escalated after that, when we agreed that pushing it further was unneeded. It wasn't 'winning', it was agreement to get off each other's toes and end the conflict. That's not impossible in the game, and it happens, and just because it isn't constantly happening in every conflict, or even most of them, doesn't mean the game itself or its mechanics need shifting to cater to non-aggression better.
Most cool stories aren't "things started getting somewhat annoying, so I decided to stab the other guy first".
Most stories in the game don't go that way either. This is a gross hyperbole that keeps coming up. Sometimes you make enemies, sometimes you don't, but the vast majority of the time, I do not see this jump that you're describing.
Most cool stories involve enemies, and plots, and sure they may include murder... But how often does a cool story have murder as the first action taken?
Against a main character? Almost never. But I think you're assuming that because you're involved and got killed, you were a main character. Sometimes you're just an accessory in another story, or the beginning or detail of another conflict. Just because you're the main character in your story doesn't make you a main character in all stories.
My assassin killing a noble from house snot-nose because he said the wrong thing seems out of sorts, until you find out that said assassin has ties with a group who that noble has been conflicting with for a long time and they've been complaining about him. That noble wasn't shit to the assassin, he was just another notch of good faith with that other group to get what he needs out of them. Not a main character in his story. Just a main character in yours.
You're not actually quoting my post anymore, just so you know.
I'm well aware. At some point, I might sit down and start actually putting full quote tags instead of clicking the neat button.
Risks can be political disappointments and wasted effort as much as anything else. It's so hard to get much of anything done in this game that I think a lot of people have simply given up trying.
This is true. But that's not often what's talked about these threads, which is why I always come in opposing; I've not averse to anything you're talking about aside from the oft-taken stance that conflict should not often escalate to violence. I think a lot of what makes things escalate faster than people are ready for is when it goes from a passive aggressive stance to an outright threat, then not expecting anything to come of it. A lot of the people on Zalanthas only take shit from nobles and templars, and there are the ones who won't even do that without a vendetta forming in their head (elves in particular). A lot of them will remember that you had gear they could live off of for a year, and that you insulted them, to boot. There's no reason in Zalanthas for that guy to hold off if he's given or creates an opportunity. None. And it's good that way.
I think a large part of it has to do with the use of the word 'conflict', because this escalation is being brought up so much. So let me break that down.
Life is cheap. If someone doesn't know you, or doesn't particularly like you, you're kind of worthless to them. Opportunity to put themselves ahead at your expense is a-ok, and to some degree, expected. While elves get the brunt of the 'trust game', it's everyone who should be wary of each other. As noted, betrayal is commonplace. Murder is common enough. Corruption is reality. When I say 'conflict', I mean opposing goals between characters. There is a driving force behind each of them to get done what they need or want done. Reducing conflict to insults? Yeah. That's not impressive conflict, and it won't be impressive resolution, either...but it will be resolved, or fade off into history (both happen).
I think you're reducing the topic a lot there as well. In my opinion, a raider clan should be fully considered, not dismissed as merely existing as long as it has a staffer.
Blackmoon was a raiding clan with staff support with its own hideout that required coded tribe-ness to enter, much like any other clan compound. It was positioned in a way to be unassailable without staff support, which means staff got the say on its destruction. Much like...Tan Muark. Red Fangs. The northern occupation. Blackwing (still around because...). The Guild. These things only exist(ed), regardless of how well you did against the PC population, because of staff support saying that the rest of it still existed. There were raids on them. There were wars with them. But ultimately, it comes down to 'Does this clan still serve a purpose so that we want it to be around, even though it just got rocked?' If the answer is yes, then it survives.
The guild has been slapped around so hard so many times over the years due to how people play in it. Blackmoon got utterly rocked a few times, before it was decided it should disappear. You say I'm reducing it too much, but at this point I'm talking about how you're saying something can't exist because of IC feasibility and how it would work, but we already make these exceptions all over the game based off of staff-supported clans.
That's not to say people shouldn't do their own raiding, but just know that it can be wiped out until such a time as a staffer decides to make it present beyond the existence of just the PC's in it. Once they do that, you can't destroy it until they say so. That's not an extreme position, that's how the game has run from the beginning of clans up to and including now.