Your preference for PKing

[amoeba]

Actually no. I believe that is exactly what some people are saying. Look for a reason, any feeble reason to let a pc live that your pc would kill. This is what I'm arguing against. This is just as bad as making up a reason to kill someone.

Agreed. There are always choices to be made.  In some cases, death is a choice. What your character does is whatever is appropriate for that character, but as in life, there are choices.  IC choices should dictate. For instance, if you are an assassin (in carrer, not guild persay) I would expect you would kill a lot, but as you have said, in all your time you have only killed three times, it reasons that the non death choice is often the right one.  If you were an assassin that never killed, I'd think that would be stretching it, unless you were a real screwup of course.

[LoD]

I think what players often wrestle with is could vs. should.

There are many times when your character could kill another player.  All of the pieces are there; there's a justifiable reason and you have the opportunity.

What (I think) Amoeba is trying to argue is that some players are so wrapped up in whether they could kill someone that they don't consider if they should kill them.

Will the death of that character make the game better?  Will a story move forward or grow as a result?  Is it a critical part of your character's long term goals?  You can rationalize your actions to achieve any goal, but simply because you have a gun doesn't mean you have to fire it.  Check out a few of these examples, and if you'd classify them as someone killing because they 'could' or 'should'.

What I consider to be weak rationalizations for PK'ing:

1. I want your stuff.
2. You called me a name!
3. I hate all <insert race here so I can PK>
4. My goal is to be the best assassin evar, so I kill!
5. You disagreed with me in front of my woman! (played by a man).

These all seem like crutches to me, that allow players spoiling for a fight to test out their hard-earned scrab twinking skills when they're bored of trying to maintain a well rounded character with realistic goals for more than an hour.

These are often the people you see:

-Sneaking into the labyrinth to kill children and old men.
-Hunting the grasslands clean of critters.
-Ignoring any wound/strong blow during a sparring match
-Falling asleep immediately after being hurt below their regeneration
level before waking up "refreshed and ready to fight".
-Using emotes that don't make sense while "hidden".
-Stand up and insta-scan the room when 'someone' does anything.
-Insta-flee when "surrounded" by 5 people and told to halt.

I would encourage others (and often myself) to look at every potential PK situation from a couple different viewpoints, and not just my own selfish desire to kill.  There may be more entertaining and interesting outcomes by leaving the person alive, or at least by placing them into a situation where you get what you want through them making a sacrifice.

For example, I had a ranger character that would prowl the sands after people and ask them for a protection fee.  If they didn't pay up, I'd attack them and usually kill them because I was an efficient mo-fo.  But I thought that wasn't what I -wanted- to happen.  I -wanted- them to give up the money, live and go tell people about the bad mammajamma out in the desert to create a story.  Killing the people wasn't the solution.

So I started making rules for myself.  They refuse once, I leave and shoot them with a warning arrow.  Next time I see them and they refuse twice, I attack them, but don't chase if they flee.  The third time they refuse, all bets are off and they're pushing up cactii in the desert somewhere.  We shouldn't WANT to kill people unless it's absolutely necessary or it enhances the gameworld.  My guess is a lot of the PK's that happen don't fall into either of those two categories, and that's unfortunate.

-LoD

[SewerRat_inTheOpen]

If there is a good reason for my pc to kill, it will happen. There is no bother about whether the death will lead to more rp or less, disrupt a plot or make someone [oocily] upset.

Because in the desert [cities], there is no consideration of that, only survival.

There is no point for blatant pking, what fun is there for both pcs?

Someone upset you? Hire a couple of muscles to make sure he will be eating out a tube for a few months. I'm sure the byn does under-the-table kind of thing with enough money in for them, or some underlings wanting to suck up.

Self-defense is survival, the aim is to cripple the enemy. Best way, death. No point in allowing something to come back to hunt you, for no reason whatsoever.

Robberies, kidnapping, theft..  Doesn't seem to be much cause for pking. But it depends on the pysche of the perpetuator. He just want money and doesn't want to kill, he's kind of pyschotic and enjoys fresh blood on armor like some blood-lusted orc, he doesn't want victims alive to talk, he enjoys infamy and wants people to talk about the colour of his underwear. He was just being opportunistic when you came along and he doesn't really know what to do, kill or let live?

assassins: real -sneak in dark, stab stab death- assassins probably don't want a name for themselves. It's a means of survival, livelihood. Assassins die fast if too many people know what they are. So, real assassins probably don't sneak to the alleys now and then to kill someone. They rather remain anonymous and work for an outfit [someone]. If someone keeps going to the alley to kill, people will see and talk spreads, they die or become hired muscles. But since no one can have skills out of nowhere, even if they have backgrounds of killing, people have to kill -stab- something to practise.

Mistakes happen when people don't understand the game. People learn. Wait.

[Forty Winks]

Pk if it's ICly reasonable to PK. I think that's been agreed upon. What I'd like to say is that, don't simply make the PK a PK. Add a plot to the event of the PK to get others, or even just yourself and the victim involved and have fun. Is that not the purpose for roleplaying your character? That's as simple as you can make it.  

P.S. Ok, I'll add one more thing. Even though it's ICly reasonable to PK someone, why rush it? Get as much enjoyment out of that "victim" as possible, and then take him out, maybe even getting a new plot out of it. I find there's never a reason to PK someone (up to a certain critical point) as soon as possible.

[Maybe42or54]

If I attack them, I ain't gonna chase them down. And I can't chase them down since they spam flee away.

[Agent_137]

I don't think roleplaying has two shits to do with plots, personally.

roleplaying is playing out your character as he would act. Plots are just gravy, like l33t l00t is, or m4xxed skrillz.

So it's no surprise to me that PKs happen and aren't shyed away from in an RPI mud. It's because we have a high percentage of skilled roleplayers, not pansies who grew up on MUSH. :mrgreen:

Roleplay mimics life. Death is a part of life. So we take it in stride.

Don't get me wrong, though. If there is a sensible and IC alternative to killing someone, I'll do it. I typically don't play blood thirsty characters. Of course, someday I might make one, or one might turn into one. Then, well, you'd be out of luck.

[amoeba]

I don't think roleplaying has two shits to do with plots, personally.

roleplaying is playing out your character as he would act. Plots are just gravy, like l33t l00t is, or m4xxed skrillz.

As with any story, the characterization (roleplay) is only part.   You can be a great roleplayer, a character, or as some like it an "actor", but the problem is without a good story  the overall experience can be as interesting as three day old mashed potatoes. Bland and dry.

I hear a lot of chest thumping about roleplaying as if that was an end all. What about making the story (game) interesting as well?

[Revelations]

I hear a lot of chest thumping about roleplaying as if that was an end all. What about making the story (game) interesting as well?