Punishing RP

[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.