Punishing RP

[Clumsy Thief]

Suppose that in an effort to create some interesting RP, a thief emotes failing a steal attempt on a templar without ever using the steal command.

Now while it is completely IC for the templar to have him killed, do you think it's bad form OOCly to punish the player for attempting to spice up the game when he could have easily maimed, tortured, or enslaved the thief and enriched the RP of everyone involved.

Before anyone tells me to email the mud, I'd like to point out that this isn't a complaint and any templar in that position has every right to kill the offending thief.

I just want to know everyone's opinion on if you think he made the right OOC choice.

[Seeker]

I think that the clumsy thief in question, in trying to enliven the game, deserves a big thumbs-up.

But... if that thief wanted the entire scene to go to his own satisfaction, he would have been better served to fail the commandless steal on a vNPC or an NPC templar.  That way, he could have finished the scene as he originally envisioned it, and much hilarity might have ensued.

Asking the readers of the GDB to judge the role-play of any other player (primarily because he didn't play the script out that someone else had created for him in their own head), based on a vague, second-hand accounting is generally nonproductive.

Kudos for the ballsy-ness, though.

Seeker

[Ghost]

I am not sure if I got it.  But if you are emoting a failed steal attempt on a templar, you better get ready for some nasty stuff.  Because you have to get close to the templar in order to steal something.  Assuming your emote would indicate how close you come to the templar, and that you even touched him, I would expect the templar to remove your offending arm so that you would not repeat that mistake again.

Templars, are to be scared of.  Your character would know well to keep his distance from one.

[Rindan]

Honestly, I think most templars would just flat out kill you.  If they don't instantly kill you and put your head on public display, it is likely because they first wanted to torture your, THEN put your head on public display.

There are two ways to bend the game.  You can either bend it a little in terms of the OOC things you control, and how your character behaves ICly.  The OOC things you can control is things like emoting a failed steal, ordering your guards to grab someone and have them emote missing, or choosing to ignore things that you as a player see, but decide that your character missed.  You can also change how your character behaves IC, like having a templar decide to let a victim live that RPed well.

For me personally, I am more then happy to bend a little for someone who is going the extra step to play out a scene.  I might even emote out the scene and give some excellent opportunities for escape.  That is to say, I might happily manipulate OOC things such that my half-giant guard trips over a table while trying to grab you.  When it comes down to it though, I will have my character do what my character would do.  I am a lot less likely to bend the personality of my character ICly.  If I had a templar that would kill any thief foolish enough to touch my sacred persona, well RPed or not, my character is going to try and kill you.

When you decide to do something like what you described, you can't expect their character to bend much, if at all.  They might give you an extra chance to escape, but if they have you, they are not going to let you live.  As far as expecting a chance to escape... it might be more likely, but I wouldn't go betting your character on it.

In my personal opinion, while doing what you described does liven up the game a little for that brief moment, a long lived character livens it up more.  Throwing away or taking excess risk for the entertainment of others is a fine way to get rid of a boring character or spice up the life of a character that is boring you to tears.  If you like your character though, I would rather see it add to the game by living a life longer then your average Byner exploring the 'rinth.

[Cenghiz]

I don't know anything about northern style.. But normally if you approach a templar before he wants you to, you probably end up stiffened in a corner with broken ribs as a h-giant guard kicks you away.
Guards should be considered. Your steal attempt should get past the guarding folks first and believe me, those manbeasts have huge guarding skills.
After that, if you could have sneaked closer to a Lord Templar, I totally agree with Ghost. The touching arm should be removed.
Even with NPC templars, I would not be comfortable with that. Some things are taboo in this game. Deciding to do something against a templar is deadly, even if it's a NPC one.

[DesertT]

Yes, there could've been more rp built up from that.  I had a case where my merchant had been in Allanak all of an hour, and was killed by a templar because of his accent.  Templar walks up, says you are guilty of treason, I can tell because of your accent, kills me.  Though my character was there to do some trading, I had entertained the thought, oocly, that he could turn into a kind of spy.  How the templar read my ooc mind, is beyond me.    But yeah, it would've been nice to see more rp come from that, rather than me trying to type out a plea, but getting my head lopped off before I could finish typing.  And as for your thief, yeah, there was definitely more opportunity for rp, but perhaps as in my case, he was just too busy to even deal with you, so just decided that you weren't worth the effort.  I see the rp in that as well.

[Cenghiz]

It's the way of play, DesertT.. I ended up in nearly same situation and ended up losing a finely carved chest. Just a chest. My OOC advice will be imagining templars similar to police states of some poor countries when it comes to bribes. If they say you're guilty, you _are_ and best way to get away is bribing.

[Clumsy Thief]

Seeker-

I'm not asking anyone to judge the templar's RP. There was nothing wrong with his RP and his IC actions were justified. I'm asking people to comment on what they would have done based only on the scenario I've given. Assume it's hypothetical and that there was no script in mind. But killing the thief doesn't do anybody any good.


Ghost-

Of course something bad should have happened and losing an arm would not have been excessive. And ICly, losing a life isn't either.

To all-

The point of this isn't to judge the templar.

It's to open a discussion about whether people think that OOC factors (like creating and maintaining good RP scenes) should affect decisions when more than one choice is ICly plausible.

And do templars in general have a responsibility to attempt to administer non-lethal but possibly permanent punishments when it is IC to do so?

[Seeker]

And do templars in general have a responsibility to attempt to administer non-lethal but possibly permanent punishments

No.

when it is IC to do so?

This DOES ask for a judgement from others on what is IC for another player's character.  Entirely out of our league.


Seeker

[Anonymous]

Seeker-

I'm not asking you to judge anybody's RP. By saying "when it is IC to do so" I'm saying that let's assume it -is- IC to do so and then let's discuss from there.

You don't need to know anything about the templar to know if killing someone is IC for him because killing someone is -always- IC for him.

This isn't about "what's IC" at all, it's about OOC courtesy in general and has nothing to do with any specific person.

[Jherlen]

I'd say... look at it from your character's perspective, not yours.

Your pc is attempting to steal from a templar. Even if you decide he'll fail, he's probably hoping he'll succeed. He probably also knows the risks that he's taking - the templar may kill him if he fails, but he's attempting to do so anyway. Well, he failed... and died. This shouldn't come as a surprise to you the player.

I agree with Seeker, we can't judge anyone else's RP or their decisions here. IMO templars should be as brutal as they feel like - suppose other people saw the templar being lenient to a thief who attempted to steal from him. Suddenly the templar gets a reputation for being soft on thieves. He probably doesn't want that. Much easier to make an example when given the opportunity.

[Ghost]

Hmm.. Now the question looks better.

Well, if I were playing the templar in the question, by the same token that a commoner approaching me that much even to touch me, there is nearly nothing that would stop me from punishing the commoner severely.  
I would be thinking like "This is not a simple crime, this is a crime and disrespect put against ME, the templar, the law enforcer.  People should be scared of me, and respect me, and some commoner ignores the fact?  I should just put an example on how to behave when the subject is me."


And a very well placed bribe could make me remove an arm or a leg publically and painfully from the thief, instead of killing.

I don't know if I will ever play a templar, but if I was playing one, in such a situation, I would respond like this.

EDIT:  The characters IG should and would know this.  Both parties.  The thief would know he is going to die if he gets caught.  The templar would know, the guards would know, the spectators would know... Things like this can be played out, if they are REALISTIC enough.  If you have enough reason why your character would mess up with a templar (maybe he is crazy.. maybe someone offered him 20000 coins if he stole templar's gloves..etc) scenes like these would be playable.  But if it is just asking to make a fingerwork on a templar, just for fun, it is too dangerous for funstuff like that.
I would more like expecting the fear of templar to be played out.

[wizturbo]

I would view this situation from a realistic standpoint.

Let us view the stereotypical Allanaki Templar.  

1.  They are mystic servants of an all-seeing, all-power god-king that we so affectionately refer to as the Highlord.  A large portion of the populace might believe that attempting to pickpocket one would be utterly impossible, as they're mystical terrifying abilities would prevent it.

2.  These fearful servants also generally have an armed escort, eager to chop of the limbs of anyone who gets too close to their charge.

3.  Citizens of Allanak would, quite likely, be quite excited at the prospect of turning in anyone they notice trying to steal from a Templar.  Many people want to be in good-favor with these powerful men and women.

With those three conditions recognized...put yourself in your character's shoes.

Let us assume, for just a moment, that your character for some reason decides they want to do it.  I think the best way to go about it, wouldn't be to sneak into the room and type "steal templar's shiny rock", but actually roleplay out the process.  Be it getting into that Templar's good graces until you get the opportunity to subtly make the steal, or take advantage of a great distraction, buying a "magick necklace" from a gemmed that will give you good luck and prevent getting caught, or any other number of realistic methods of penetrating such a dangerous set of defenses (whether they are codedly there or not).  Just walking in and hoping you get lucky with the code...seems pretty lame to me.

[Clumsy Thief]

wizturbo-

The code was not used at all. As I said, we're talking about a situation that was acted out purely in emotes...until the thief died.

[wizturbo]

wizturbo-

The code was not used at all. As I said, we're talking about a situation that was acted out purely in emotes...until the thief died.

Yeah, I think using emotes is a good idea.  And...to be honest...emoting out a failure is being realistic, as unless the pickpocket is insanely adept they're probably going to fail.

Don't be upset if you get killed for trying and deliberately failing though, as anyone should know that is the likely result of such an act.

[Gaare]

If I understand you correctly, here is my two sids. ARM is an RPI game and creating and being into good scenes is of course every players' wish. Also for a role like Templar, IMHO that's a bit of responsibility as well.

On the other hand, your question goes into a bit IC in sense because situation can differ for each Templar. There are not exact and strict laws in Zalanthas after all, and a templar's words are law until another one has another opinion on it. So, a templar could have a bit of maniac personality and enjoys showing elf heads in public, other one could like using taking body part as a punishment, one of them could even enjoy those attempts and prefers using those awkward thieves for her/his own plots.

As I see, there are a few usual chracteristics of templars, and bribe is maybe the most common.  On the other hand, even a PC templar could be so maniac and rudeless that s/he does not care a well amount of bribe in your example (Nevertless to say that would be an unpleasant suprise for the thief) and cut the head quickly without a word. Surely that would not be a good RP scene for the victim, templar and audiance but if that PC templar ICly likes getting into solution quick and bloody, then I believe there is nothing to say.

Edit: Smoothing and Grammar.

[Seeker]

This isn't about "what's IC" at all, it's about OOC courtesy in general and has nothing to do with any specific person.

If I understand the direction of your question, now, it is:

Should OOC courtesy (i.e. not killing a PC when other RP methods are legitimately available) be more important than a player running their character in an entirely IC manner, and making their decision strictly in an IC fashion.

That's a more interesting question for discussion, if I understand you correctly.

[Clumsy Thief]

Seeker-

That's exactly what I'm asking, thank you for phrasing it so well.

I don't really want to discuss any particular situation at all and nobody should be surprised or upset by what happened to the "Clumsy Thief" because it makes perfect IC sense.

The real question is what you said, Seeker, with an emphasis on -legitimately- available.

Should OOC courtesy (i.e. not killing a PC when other RP methods are legitimately available) be more important than a player running their character in an entirely IC manner, and making their decision strictly in an IC fashion.

[Cale_Knight]

Right - this is a question about player to player interaction, not character to character interaction. I think that when you're in a position of power, it can be easy to forget that there's a person behind every PC, and I also think that decisions should be made keeping that fact in mind.

I think Rindan's example is the best marriage between IC actions and respect for other players.

[Rhyden]

wizturbo-

The code was not used at all. As I said, we're talking about a situation that was acted out purely in emotes...until the thief died.

Emoted fail or code fail, I still think this certain situation would lead to the same concequence.

I think the problem here is knowing where to draw the line between an emoted action and a coded action. If you're emoting walking up to a templar and trying to snatch some coins from within his pocket, you'll most likely get the same reaction for codedly trying to steal something and failing. This works for this certain situation where emote and code are practically the same.

It's the same as walking up to a templar and emoting to kick him in the shin or using the actual skill kick. You'll most likely get the same reaction.

IMO, I'd say using emotes to back up your coded action would have been the best thing to do in your given templar-thief situation.

[Ender]

The thing that I will never agree with is the idea that Templars should not kill PCs because it ends RP.  That statement is utterly false if you ask me.  If it goes against the nature of the character to keep a person alive, then that is what kills RP.

Everytime a templar lets an arrogant "bows to no one" type off the hook because OOCly they don't want to kill a PC, that is where RP dies.  

Every time a templar goes easy on a thief who publically tries to even dare to touch him, it sets a precedent to other thieves.  If this decision was done because OOCly the thief RPed well, then the IC precedent is marred by an OOC decision.

For the specific situation given, I doubt any templar would ever -ever- want to show to the public that he/she will tolerate a filthy thief putting his dirty commoner hands on him.  A thief trying to steal from a templar should be a death sentance, and a thief should know that will be the consequence if he/she is caught.  The reason is simple, stealing from a templar is a personal attack on the templar.  Not only is it an affront to the templar's authority, it shows weakness and vulnerability to be stolen from.

For the complaints that killing a PC ends interaction.  Yes, yes it does, for that moment atleast.  But this is a roleplaying MUD, not an interaction MUD.  Roleplaying should never be sacrificed so that interaction can continue.  

Remember, if the player is good he/she will accept their totally IC death and make a new character who will go on interacting.  

It shouldn't matter how well someone emoted or RPed, templars are in no way obligated to go lenient on a PC because they can emote well or played out a scene well.

[Larrath]

If I was playing the templar in this example, I would either execute the thief or throw him into the Arena agaisnt impossible odds.
I don't believe, as far as ordinary human commoners are concerned, that templars are being deadly enough.  Templars aren't Pez dispensers of lawful justice; they're heartless monsters!

I'd like to see more "You're ugly" taxes and punishments for annoying templars - like a couple of lashes if you stand tall and look the templar in the eye while twenty people around you are bowing.
Templars also need to kill people, and what the thief did certainly merits it.  It's perfectly fine with me.  I don't kill enough PCs myself, so someone has to.

[JohnGalt]

I agree with alot of things said here.  Whether the action is well roleplayed or not, shouldn't impact the consequence of said action.  You try and rob a Templar, you should expect a very painful death.  You cast a spell in the middle of Tuluk, regardless of how well you emote the bands of flame curling around your Krathi's fingertips, expect to get torn apart by a lynch mob.

Is it good roleplay to emote things out that will quite likely kill your character?  Yes, it is.  But it can just as easily be good roleplay NOT to do those suicidal acts...because they are in fact suicidal acts, and reasonable people don't do things like that without some incredible justification.

Supposing for a moment you do have that incredible justification...and *have* to do something outrageously dangerous, emoting it out and likely dying for it would in my opinion be the best course of action.  It might be a bit depressing, it might not be OOCly fun, but it's good roleplay and everyone involved will appreciate it.

[JohnGalt]

I don't believe, as far as ordinary human commoners are concerned, that templars are being deadly enough.  Templars aren't Pez dispensers of lawful justice; they're heartless monsters!

(I agree with you for the most part, but let me play devil's advocate because I'm in the mood)

Are all sorceror's evil beings bent on world domination?  Are all merchant's greedy?  Are all bards good at singing?  Is every gypsy a thief?

Stereotypes exist for a reason, and they're a good guide on how particular people act or don't act, but that is not to say *reasonable* exceptions do not exist.

One of the most delighful surprises I've had in my time playing this MUD, is that it is like real life, filled with the unexpected.  Now, completely diverting from the 'norms' of how a role is supposed to be played isn't something I think is good unless done by an amazingly talented player who can pull it off.  But having a character who is alive, and has their quirks and habits, their differences and their similarities to these norms is what I believe a 'good' character to be.  Being different than the 'norm', yet strikingly realistic in Zalanthas.

[marko]

Simply put - At no time should OOC considerations affect IC reactions and actions.  

Therefore, in this case, the templar should not be swayed by the fact the thief was "rping" out an attempt to steal from their person.  The reaction needs to be the same whether it was a code based steal or an emoted steal - there should be absolutely no difference in reaction.

I believe in interactions and playing with a situation - letting it go on for as long as it can (assuming it is fun) but I also do not believe in coddling stupid IC actions for any reason.  This particular thief was incredibly stupid to try and steal from a templar - therefore, the end result is likely to be death.  Templars, for the most part, don't reward stupidity.  

Now, if you had wanted to further the interaction and not died - the thief could have tried to steal from someone _else_ and then bribed the templar.  

Unfortunately, in this situation, there is no question in my mind that the templar acted entirely appropriately.  I am a very firm believer in always doing the roleplayed reaction properly no matter the situation (be it a friend who is on the receiving end, or maybe there were some amazing emotes done, or whatever).  Make no exceptions for OOC reasoning.  

The moment you do that you pollute your own roleplaying.

[Xygax]

Yes, the player made the right choice OOCly and ICly.  Whether codedly or not, if you "get caught" with your grubby paws on a templar in any sort of unsolicited manner, he should probably kill you...

Who cares whether code was involved?

-- X

[jstorrie]

If anything, I'd be surprised if a templar in question 'just' killed any PC that made an attempt to steal from him, RP or not. Comitting a direct offense against a templar is way, way up on the list of no-nos, in both cities.

[Sokotra]

Taken from the story about the three templars sons, I think it's in the original submissions area...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Seize him!" he shouted, pointing at the elf, and the half giants did.

The elf pleaded for mercy, words spilling from his lips faster than sand grains being swept across a dune, and Arylian frowned and scowled and refused to listen. Telling Tug to continue holding onto the elf, he went in search of a collar and whip, for he meant to flay the elf's skin from his bones, and then enslave him for daring to touch the robes of a templar.

And so the elf continued speaking, trying to persuade the giants to let him go, in the name of kindness, and mercy, and various other opportunings.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, sure... a quick death might be in store, but if the Templar as anything that needs done that might require a ballsy rogue, then it might be more beneficial to the templar if he didn't simply kill him.  There are alot more things that can be done to make the game more interesting than just simply killing the rogue outright... especially if he has the guts to RP out a failed steal attempt.  Obviously that is an RP plea that the player is wanting to engage in deeper RP than the code allows, so don't be an ass by just ending the RP with another dumb death.  I would even find most RP'd out 'torture' sessions rather stupid and meaningless if it simply ended in the character dying.  What good does that do?  Sure, it has a blah blah effect on blah blah to keep blah from thinking the Templar is weak or blah blah whatever.  Heh.

Unless they are just just repeatedly asking to be publically executed, I say let them go/escape minus a few fingers... to create more interesting role-play in the future.

[Maybe42or54]

There are alot more things that can be done to make the game more interesting than just simply killing the rogue outright... especially if he has the guts to RP out a failed steal attempt.

I just wanted to respond to this.

Icly, everyone RPs a failed sneak attempt. Oocly, everyone could be doing something that gets rid of your respect for the thief and then you don't let the thief have any chance to steal from you. Or you just stop going where the thief goes, since they don't rp anything anyway.

[ale six]

So, sure... a quick death might be in store, but if the Templar as anything that needs done that might require a ballsy rogue, then it might be more beneficial to the templar if he didn't simply kill him.  There are alot more things that can be done to make the game more interesting than just simply killing the rogue outright... especially if he has the guts to RP out a failed steal attempt.  Obviously that is an RP plea that the player is wanting to engage in deeper RP than the code allows, so don't be an ass by just ending the RP with another dumb death.

There are ballsy thieves around who also aren't stupid enough to try and steal from a templar. Either major city is crawling all over with rogue types, why should a templar spare one who insulted him and invaded his own space?

I think the biggest misconception here is that a player is 'being an ass' when they kill you for something that could be punishable by death. You as a player put yourself in a position where your pc would likely die, and no matter what your intentions or how well you roleplayed it, you shouldn't expect the other players to break IC just to be nice to you. There's plenty of ways to engage in deep RP beyond the code without putting yourself in mortal danger...

[Rindan]

I hate to disagree with almost everyone, but I disagree with almost everyone.  I don't think the situation needed to end with a dead thief.  I think the situation could have been played out ICly without anything unrealistic happening, and still have the thief end up alive.  Players have far more control over the game then just how their character behaves.  You also have a great deal of control over chance and luck, especially of the type that is negative for you.  

Without a doubt said templar should have done everything in his power to kill said thief.  That doesn't mean that the player playing the templar has to do so too.  So, if a thief fails a steal attempt on a templar through RPed means, instead of instantly ordering his guards to subdue and kill the thief, he could instead emote his guards barreling over tables to get to the thief and failing.  The templar could have had his guards fail to capture the thief, and the thief could of run off.  From that point the templar can loudly declare a large bounty for the thief, and send his militia off to go capture/kill the thief.  That entire scenario would have been 100% IC and no one would have had to deviate from how their character would play out the scene.  If anything, you probably just added amusement for all parties involved, as now militia, the thief, and any bounty hunters all are involved.  All this is accomplished, and no one broke IC.

Now, I am not saying that this is how it should have happened.  There is nothing wrong or unrealistic about a templar using the code to quickly dispatch said thief.  I am simply pointing out that the fatalistic attitude people seem to have about this situation where there was simply nothing else the templar could have done and still stayed IC is just wrong.  This is an RPI.  That means that you don't always need to use the code in the most efficient manner possible.  Players have almost perfect control over "bad luck".  In the same way a thief's player can intentionally decide to fail a steal, a templar's player can intentionally decide to make his guard fail a subdue or engage with a kill.

[Ghost]

Slight derailment.

So, if a thief fails a steal attempt on a templar through RPed means, instead of instantly ordering his guards to subdue and kill the thief, he could instead emote his guards barreling over tables to get to the thief and failing.

Seems fine indeed.  But in this scenario, the thief attemting to the steal from the templar, the thief has to be very close to the templar, and the templar's guards.  So in a swing of arms, they would be at the said thief.  I don't think the odds of failing is good enough to let that happen.

If the thief was a criminal in the tavern and the templar just arrived, a scene like failing to get to the thief until he ran off would make a sense.  But not when the said thief is at templar's side.

[joyofdiscord]

Also, how do you know the Templar in question didn't reward your attempt at RP?  As far as he's to know, you wanted your character to die (as there's really few other realistic outcomes of such a scene), but in an interesting way like at a Templar's hand.  There's no way for him to know that you would prefer your character to live after such an event.  He may have, instead, given you a neat death scene.

[JohnGalt]

I hate to disagree with almost everyone, but I disagree with almost everyone.  I don't think the situation needed to end with a dead thief.  I think the situation could have been played out ICly without anything unrealistic happening, and still have the thief end up alive.  Players have far more control over the game then just how their character behaves.  You also have a great deal of control over chance and luck, especially of the type that is negative for you.  

Without a doubt said templar should have done everything in his power to kill said thief.  That doesn't mean that the player playing the templar has to do so too.  So, if a thief fails a steal attempt on a templar through RPed means, instead of instantly ordering his guards to subdue and kill the thief, he could instead emote his guards barreling over tables to get to the thief and failing.  The templar could have had his guards fail to capture the thief, and the thief could of run off.  From that point the templar can loudly declare a large bounty for the thief, and send his militia off to go capture/kill the thief.  That entire scenario would have been 100% IC and no one would have had to deviate from how their character would play out the scene.  If anything, you probably just added amusement for all parties involved, as now militia, the thief, and any bounty hunters all are involved.  All this is accomplished, and no one broke IC.

Now, I am not saying that this is how it should have happened.  There is nothing wrong or unrealistic about a templar using the code to quickly dispatch said thief.  I am simply pointing out that the fatalistic attitude people seem to have about this situation where there was simply nothing else the templar could have done and still stayed IC is just wrong.  This is an RPI.  That means that you don't always need to use the code in the most efficient manner possible.  Players have almost perfect control over "bad luck".  In the same way a thief's player can intentionally decide to fail a steal, a templar's player can intentionally decide to make his guard fail a subdue or engage with a kill.

He could have done this, sure.  But honestly, the REALISTIC response would be the almost immediate capture of the thief.  Guards are not lingering far away from their charge, they're right there, waiting for an opportunity to hack off some limbs.  

Sure, the Templar or guards might be distracted at the moment.  If that's the case, I think some kind of delayed response to give the thief an opportunity to flee is a great course of action.  But in most cases, the thief wouldn't escape.  Just like in most cases the bad guys don't get away in a high-speed chase.

[Swordsman]

One thing that I don't think has been considered yet is: what was the templar's personal perspective? No one except the templar's player really knows what that templar (character) was thinking and feeling at that point in time. Maybe the templar had a bad day and didn't hesitate to kill that annoying thief. Maybe the templar had a good day but is an utterly cruel and evil person, so he killed the annoying thief anyway. While we can certainly discuss role-playing situations from an intellectual point of view, we simply cannot know what the templar character was thinking. As it is, I don't think we've even heard the other player's point of view (and I don't think he/she should be obliged to post it, anyway), so we are just getting one side of the story.

Zalanthas is harsh. ICly, I've seen people get executed for literally saying a word out of place, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. ICly, there would be every reason for a templar to summarily execute someone trying to steal from him/her due to the significant social statement that such an act is making (even if the thief might not ICly realise it). There are times when death might not be necessary, but it shouldn't be up to a bunch of people (us reading this in an OOC forum) who weren't there and don't know the details (e.g., what each character was thinking) to decide. If there's a problem, let the imms adjudicate.

Arm is a role-play intensive MUD. Think IC, act IC, react IC. There are times we all slip into a bit of an OOC mode of thinking, but we should always remember the IC perspective first. Wanting to extend a role-playing situation is a noble ideal OOCly, but it should not take precedence over what would be ICly realistic, especially in a conflict situation like stealing from a templar. All IMO.

Swordsman

[HunterKiller]

It's really up to the templar him/herself, there's no right answer to this.  If it were me I probably would've tortured -and- humiliated the character in front of everyone to save face and then kept him afterward to see if he were useful to me in another way.  There are many more ways to show power and save face rather than just killing them.  Sometimes just killing them might make the templar seem weak (think Gladiator and the emporer's dilemma) as well as less than creative.  "The templar killed him before he could embarrass him in another way."

Then again maybe I would make a better tuluk templar than an allanak templar.   :?

- HK

[Xygax]

I hate to disagree with almost everyone....
-=-=-=snip=-=-=-
Rest of fantastic post deleted, but you (yes, you) should go read it.

Rindan:  I appreciate your perspective on this, and I think it's certainly fair to say that the alternative you've presented here IS an excellent option.

That said, the original question (it seemed to me) was "is the templar in this case behaving in a manner which is ICly or OOCly inappropriate?"  My answer is "no."

There are, as you observed, always alternatives to the codedly "perfect" response of "crim thief" and watching your huge herd of hefty half-giants hack him into hash.  And, I think it would be outstanding if more templars allowed themselves moments of ineptitude along the lines of what you've laid out (including NPC templars -- something I try to do with my own when I wind up inside one).

Good post.  (and I still disagree with your core answer)

-- X

[Clumsy Thief]

Xygax-

I don't think that the templar behaved inappropriately at all, but I did want to discuss alternatives to his actions and what other people would have done in a similar situation.

And as for the question concerning whether or not OOC factors should help in IC decisions, I'm not suggesting that anyone should do something that is not IC, but that when there exist multiple viable IC courses of action, OOC consideration should play some part in making the decision and killing a PC should be a last resort.

[Xygax]

Clumsy Thief:  Your exact words were, "is it bad form...."

I think that calling a templar killing a thief who tried to steal from him (in public even?) bad form is utterly unreasonable.

-- X


ps - Also, I don't agree that OOC consideration should affect the templar's roleplay in this case.  There are plenty of potential IC reasons to save killing as a last resort, and I will even concede that templars DO take on a sort of complicated OOC burden.  However, I think of late it has been far more common for PC templars to behave in an unreasonably tolerant manner, than vice versa.  This situation seems to me like the perfect example of a time for a PC templar to show a little totalitarian, iron-fist rulership and punishment.

[sarahjc]

I also have to say I -love- Rindan's second option on this.  The people who are selected to play templars in this game are always as far as I can tell some of the best Role Players in the game. It is refreshing when they decide to choose a Rp'd option over a coded one and also inspires others to take that route sometimes.  

So, should they be held to a higher standard of Rp then the rest of us? I think so. But are they obligated to take mercy on others? Absolutely not.

They can choose to let you go and Rp out a fumble, but that can't be an option all the time. Templars are IC'ly feared and for good reason. They can and -will- kill your PC if you do something bad, and -especially- if you do something bad to them. If they were obligated to OOC'ly choose keeping a PC alive as opposed to a death punishment, I really think that the IC reaction to them would be of a lesser quality fear. I like it when my heart pounds out of my chest every time a templar speaks with my PC and showing more leniency on P-killing from them, would in part ruin that for me.

[Sokotra]

Well, hmm... I guess nobody will be role-playing out a failed steal attempt anymore, then... they'll probably just do a real steal and run away very quickly.

Seems like everyone thinks the thief is going to immediately lose in this scenario.  If a thief is stealing, they are probably prepared to get away very quickly and the Templar may not always be able to get around tables or through crowds as quickly as the thief could, and probably already planned to do in the first place.  

I've seen thieves get away with stealing from Templars, successfully or not, many times... so I think the thief was being a good sport by RP'ing a failed steal attempt, like I said, and attempting to make a good RP scene.  Sure it is IC to kill the thief outright... but it is just as IC not to do so, and still punish the thief horribly and people make people even more afraid of you.  You ass.

[Cenghiz]

Seems like everyone thinks the thief is going to immediately lose in this scenario. If a thief is stealing, they are probably prepared to get away very quickly and the Templar may not always be able to get around tables or through crowds as quickly as the thief could, and probably already planned to do in the first place.

RPing that steal attempt is possible, but realistic? I played h-giants. I even played a very young h-giant with all poor stats and still managed to guard against badass warriors who have a schedule to train guarding without even one mistake. Why? Because a h-giant is huge. It's larger than the scrabs you see. When a Lord Templar is flanked by two h-giants, it's nearly impossible to get near. And the code supports that. So I know I'm being bitchy but... Possibly that thief did think of nothing about how he would get away. Because when a h-giant reaches forward, he would possibly hold anything within his huge range and huge hands. If you're not an expert, it's a suicide to think of getting through a wall of muscle - two half-giants that is.
But of course I'm only assuming an ordinary scenario. The templar may have decided to have ordinary human guards that day or the thief could have been an expert.

[Xygax]

Well, hmm... I guess nobody will be role-playing out a failed steal attempt anymore, then... they'll probably just do a real steal and run away very quickly.

This doesn't logically follow from my remarks.  I'm saying "it isn't bad form for a templar to kill a clumsy thief whose hand is found in his pocket."  You're saying, "therefore no thief should ever bother RPing any failed steal attempt!"  This tendency to draw an extreme conclusion from an otherwise rational line-of-thought isn't going to help us find common ground, and doesn't further the discussion.

A more rational conclusion is:  "if you steal from a templar and get caught, expect serious consequences, up to and including death".  And please stop worrying about whether the "getting caught" is as the result of a coded skill attempt failure or an RPed emote.  Again, there is no logical sense in decoupling the two.  A failed steal attempt is a failed steal attempt, whether it is as a result of "steal coins templar" or "pemo eyes widen as he stumbles, his hand actually becoming stuck in %templar pocket as he falls."

Seems like everyone thinks the thief is going to immediately lose in this scenario.  If a thief is stealing, they are probably prepared to get away very quickly and the Templar may not always be able to get around tables or through crowds as quickly as the thief could, and probably already planned to do in the first place.

This is why good thieves pick their victims and locations carefully.  If you need to hit a templar (say, for a contract or similar), you'd better have an alley close by to duck into, and an escape-route planned, and you'd better not let him get a good look at you.  All of this is supported by the world-design in both major cities, and by the code.

But, "this scenario", the one where the silly, clumsy thief randomly gropes up a templar and then stands there waiting for RP...  yes, the thief will probably "lose" (for definitions of "lose" that have to do with dying, having a hand cut off, etc., not definitions that have to do with having enjoyable RP -- though you and the original poster seem to be blurring these definitions).

I've seen thieves get away with stealing from Templars, successfully or not, many times... so I think the thief was being a good sport by RP'ing a failed steal attempt, like I said, and attempting to make a good RP scene.  Sure it is IC to kill the thief outright... but it is just as IC not to do so, and still punish the thief horribly and people make people even more afraid of you.  You ass.

Yeah, the thief may have been being a "good sport", but the templar in question was not being a "bad sport" or engaging in "bad form" because he replied as he did, and regardless of the intent the original poster -claimed- he had, this thread has very much the feel of attempting to chastise the templar's player for not giving the thief the particular RPed reaction he was apparently scripting for.

-- X

[Sokotra]

This doesn't logically follow from my remarks.  I'm saying "it isn't bad form for a templar to kill a clumsy thief whose hand is found in his pocket."  You're saying, "therefore no thief should ever bother RPing any failed steal attempt!"  This tendency to draw an extreme conclusion from an otherwise rational line-of-thought isn't going to help us find common ground, and doesn't further the discussion.
-- X

Yeesh, sorry man.. I guess I'll stay out of the discussions.  I wasn't really trying to be so serious and critical or really even make a debate out of it.  I was simply stating an opinion, half-jokingly in some respects... (is this still a game or real life? lighten up a little)

As for the concern in finding common ground.. I think my point was simply to have some respect for the player who goes beyond necessity and RP's a failed steal attempt when it would be extremely easy for him to actually get away with it.   I don't know the exact details of the scenario, so I'm not even arguing... but you are doing a good job in being subtle in your attempt to make it into an argument.  You win.

[Agent_137 (2L2L)]

warning: I didn't read anything but the first post on this thread.

Personally, I think killing should be the last option on everyone's list, espescially those in power who have nothing to gain from it.

Not only is killing wasteful from an IC resource point of view (enslave, fine, turn them to spy), but it's also very unpleasent from a player's point of view.

I'm not saying we should all hug each other and never kill anyone, but it -should- only be used when necessary, and replaced by creativity and practicality.

[jstorrie]

There are thousands of available slaves in Tuluk and Allanak. Why would a templar want to spend his valuable time bringing in an untrained, unbroken commoner (and one who's stupid enough to try to steal from a templar, no less)? Similarly, why would a templar want a spy who doesn't know not to try to steal from templars?

[Maybe42or54]

They don't have to be smart, and they can learn obedience, or die.
You don't need many skills to live and work in a mine shaft with a slave collar around your neck and a whip at your back.

[jstorrie]

And from the player's point of view, how is that any better than the PC dying?

The point I'm trying to make is that no templar is going to pick Random Joe Commoner to be a specialized slave with any sort of freedom. That is to say, he's not going to pick that character to do a PC-appropriate slave role. If anything, yes, he's going to yoke that guy up and send him to the mines, effectively retiring the character, which isn't any 'better', is it?

[Maybe42or54]

It's not, but if If I were a templar, I'd just tell the commoner that I am going to sell them as a slave for five small. They have two options. Buy themselves, or the mines will buy you.