Mutilation

[Raesanos]

How do you feel when your character gets mutilated?  For example, an authority cuts out your tongue and requests that you are unable to talk anymore.  Great fun--always interesting?  Or do people have trouble playing a character that can't talk, or see, or whatever, and end up feeling stuck?  Post your thoughts.

[jhunter]

I like it done the way it is where it can -only- be done in a well-rped scene and with staff intervention. I wouldn't want to see it possible to happen by a purely coded decision of the game.
Sometimes it can be fun. Sometimes it's storageville.

[Raesanos]

On the record, there is no intent to make code that can do this without staff intervention.

[Fathi]

Haven't ever had a PC mutilated by an authority figure, but I've seen it done and often times I think it can improve a scene far above just 'order giant kill man.'

If I was playing said authority figure, I'd keep in mind that there are ways to mutilate someone and/or make a statement that aren't as drastic or play-impeding as cutting out a tongue or making someone unable to see or walk at all, just like there are ways to make a statement without mutilating someone at all.

To victims, I'd say accidents happen sometimes, but 9 times out of 10, your character being mutilated by a templar is a direct result of your own actions, and you as a player need to be prepared to deal with those, even if it means permanent changes to your PC.

[Pale Horse]

Mutilations!  I'd vastly prefer such over having my character killed outright.  I'd be more than willing to live with a missing eye, a four fingered hand, etc.  It lends a bit of "history" to your character, and serves as a long-time example of someone's displeasure..much longer and more visible than having someone executed.

..Of course, if said mutilation took place, I'd like to know what sort of torture was being planned, in advance.  If it was something a bit too inhibiting, I might object, but on the same note, I'd be more than willing to hash out something satisfactory between both parties.

[Yokunama]

Don't forget about the other side of the fruit.
You don't need to be in an authority position to mutilate someone, but it is easier when you have staff and bajillions of npcs to help you out.

[Maybe42or54]

For myself, I fucking -hate- it. When I'm Doin' my thang, Mr. Templar shows up, over reacts IG, decides, "Hey, I'm going to take this fucker back, cut out his tongue. For being a smart ass. I'm a templar, he is a commoner."

It has happened to me before like that, but they just killed me instead.

Now, on the other hand, one of my characters became unable to make solid words with his jaw because he was held down and beat by a half giant. I didn't mind the slur, or the straight up beating over the head, it was quite fun.

So my point is, if the situation is roll played out and it comes to that, fine, whatever. If they do it against my, the player, will, then that fucking sucks.

[Bogre]

Actually, I believe I witnessed the above, and it was pretty awesome.

I've done a mutilation IG with a char, but I believe it was just carving a symbol to scar, not affecting the dude's play at all beyond rp. Affecting someone's ability to enjoy the game is bad, and if you want to try and cut out a tongue/hand, I'd always ask oocly first.

[Dalmeth]

I wholly endorse the idea of mutilations and not just as an alternative to outright killing.  It's an event for your character to respond to and builds history.  

However, there are certain mutilations that our game, well-developed as it is, is not equipped to deal with.  Blindness is one of them.  It's so limiting, that if you aren't too keen on the socialite scene, you're going to end up being bored.  It's just a simple fact of life that some characters won't recover from a serious injury.  A large part of it is just how the mutilation affects the character and how that in turn changes the player's enjoyment of the game.

[Marauder Moe]

I'm up for anything short of blindness and loss of more than one limb.

However, I don't think it would be unreasonable for some sort of consent to mutilation rule, or OOC negotiation before the act to work out something both parties find acceptable.

[jhunter]

However, I don't think it would be unreasonable for some sort of consent to mutilation rule, or OOC negotiation before the act to work out something both parties find acceptable.

The only issue I have with that is someone taking advantage of it to avoid suffering IC consequences for their actions and -forcing- you to have to act unrealistically because they didn't "consent" to it. I've taken part in a mutilation where I gave the pc involved plenty of opportunity for it not to go that far and they insisted upon pursuing that path, -finally-...I did have their tongue removed.

I agree on the complete blindness or removal of multiple limbs, if you're gonna go that far...I'd just put an end to the pc permanently so they could move on to something else.

[Mood]

However, I don't think it would be unreasonable for some sort of consent to mutilation rule, or OOC negotiation before the act to work out something both parties find acceptable.

The only issue I have with that is someone taking advantage of it to avoid suffering IC consequences for their actions and -forcing- you to have to act unrealistically because they didn't "consent" to it. I've taken part in a mutilation where I gave the pc involved plenty of opportunity for it not to go that far and they insisted upon pursuing that path, -finally-...I did have their tongue removed.

I agree on the complete blindness or removal of multiple limbs, if you're gonna go that far...I'd just put an end to the pc permanently so they could move on to something else.

If they don't consent to mutilation, you could just kill them. You don't need no stinkin' consent for execution.

[X-D]

First, I've seen good scenes and play, and later play from the mutilations.

But, I am against any that cause blindness, deafness, muteness or the full removal of a limb (hand+) Unless a consent rule was in place.

I personaly have no interest in playing a cripple, if I did, I would make one or make a normal PC and decide he was crippled the first time he took a frightening hit. To me it is no different then forcing somebody to play a slave...which I believe takes some sort of consent.

Jhunter, consent would help you get out of nothing. The option is easy in cases like that, mutilation or death.

Lets see here, pc got tongue cut out and a hand removed...hhhmm, am I in the mood to play a cripple...Nope, walk walk walk, silt sea.

Welcome to armageddon.

[Sanvean]

If they don't consent to mutilation, you could just kill them. You don't need no stinkin' consent for execution.

I believe there is some misunderstanding of the consent rule here. Here is the first paragraph of the help file:

There are few restrictions on roleplay in Armageddon. If you choose to roleplay adult situations, that is fine. However, before instigating such an act with another player, please OOC to make sure that the role play is consented to. If someone is instigating roleplay that makes you uncomfortable, please OOC that they should stop. If they continue despite being told to stop, please wish up. This rule is not meant to be abused in order to allow characters to escape death/torture/etc. Perhaps a good analogy is the movie ratings system: some people may wish to see the details acted out in a way which would deserve an R rating while another, younger player might prefer that the details be communicated in an OOC fashion and left offstage.

Not consenting doesn't get a character out of the act -- it does allow it to happen off-stage. There is only one exception to this, which is rape emotes, which do require consent.

[X-D]

Actually Sanvean, I think we are talking about "Adding" a new concent rule/style more then anything...or at least I am.

[psionic fungus]

I happen to think that mutilation is a great roleplaying opportunity on Armageddon.  It is a non-fatal punishment that is not likely to be forgotten, and is almost always reversible, if the character chooses to pursue certain options. Sometimes I think people are too quick to kill (or die) with their characters, I would rather see more mutilations than more PKing.  I would always prefer mutilation over death, as death is something a mutilated character can always choose later, and storage is always an option for those players who don't want to play mutilated characters but also wouldn't see their character committing suicide.

Where's the beef?

[X-D]

And I'd likely always choose death.

Keep in mind, I am only talking about large scale perm mutilations. Not torture and such that you actually recover from.

And as such, knowing that it is simply going to end in "ME" killing my PC no matter what then I'm very likely to simply OOC Enjoy. drop carrier.

[IntuitiveApathy]

And as such, knowing that it is simply going to end in "ME" killing my PC no matter what then I'm very likely to simply OOC Enjoy. drop carrier.

I bet your PC would object once in a while to that.

[Yokunama]

Where's the beef?

I guess someone wants to be able to play their player as they planned, having spent time to think of and write down a character concept. For example, the player wanted to be some independant hunter, but he/she got perma blinded by a templar. Now, the player is forced to play some dumb, blind beggar in the streets.

[Marauder Moe]

Like X-D said, I think this is a proposal for a new consent class for mutilations.  Give victims a chance to OOCly negotiate if the proposed action would fundamentally alter how their PC has to be played.

I think a policy like this would actually encourage non-lethal punishment.  As it is, I suspect many people kill rather than mutilate because mutilation feels like it borders on powergaming.  If the process and the acceptable parameters were regulated, players might feel more comfortable to mete out that sort of punishment.

[Tarx]

I guess someone wants to be able to play their player as they planned, having spent time to think of and write down a character concept. For example, the player wanted to be some independant hunter, but he/she got perma blinded by a templar. Now, the player is forced to play some dumb, blind beggar in the streets.

I can see the frustration if a player was subjected to this without proper IC cause, but most cases I have seen for this involve a character that was given chances and did not use them appropriately.

[Janna]

I'm all for mutilation personally. Having had past characters in some power positions, my state of mind was to try and avoid outright death at almost any cost, unless it started to border on jarring for the IC situation. Which, leaves mutilation or various acts to humiliate the PC in question.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, there are always ways to send a message. Horrible scars, burns, taking a single eye, whippings, taking a finger/toe, or even taking a little skinning knife and going to town playing connect the dots on a PC's chest would suffice and the Char could still recover from it.

So, I'd throw in my two cents that mutilation on a moderate or less degree is great fun and adds character to the PC in question. But, mutilation that requires you to completely cripple a PC, registers to me that they did something -so- wrong that death is likely what they would get in such a brutal enviroment that this game is built on.

[Kyviantre]

Why not have a level of consent?  If you're going to gouge out an eye, no need for consent.  If Joe Templar wants to turn Bob Hunter into a cripple, then require consent for whole limbs (or multiple limbs), total blindness, total deafness, etc.  Anything that would cause extreme damage.

Example being, Joe Templar wants Bob Hunter to lose both hands because he's been thieving hunting weapons.  Bob Hunter is OOC upset, and after a quick negotiation OOC, it goes down to one hand because 'its a first offense'.  If Bob Hunter is dumb enough to try again, and gets caught, then he won't have a second hand to barter off, and will end up minus both hands!

Same could be done with eyes, ears, etc etc.  Tongues, legs, and multiples of anything should be consent (can always swap a tongue for a torch to the earlobe instead!), but things that can be lived through and after, no consent needed.

[Marauder Moe]

If not a new form of consent, at least a new set of regulations and/or documents on what's appropriate and how, if necessary, to go about getting coded penalties or scars to back it up.  I suspect that may Raesanos's intent anyway.

[Lizzie]

I won't ever consent to roleplayed torture resulting in mutilation but I'm not opposed to it if it's faded. On the other hand if my character was suddenly code-wise unable to see or walk, or had both arms removed and was unable to feed herself, I'd probably just store her rather than wait for her to starve to death or need to hire someone to feed her/carry her around.

I'm not opposed to the idea, and I'm not opposed to people who enjoy that level of RP to continue enjoying it. It's just not something I would like for my own RP.