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.

[Raesanos]

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.

We have been thinking about requiring consent for mutilation that effects the character's ability to function.  This would not include aesthetic stuff.  The obvious concern is reducing the harshness of the game, but hopefully since the other options are torture and death it wouldn't do that.  I'd think it'd just reduce the number of people playing and/or storing characters that they no longer enjoy, but I wanted to start this thread to see what you all, the folks who would be effected by this, thought.

[Malken]

I totally agree with Lizzie for once

Same thing for me.

[slipshod]

I really do not like the idea of players being able to oocly negotiate IC punishment.  I know, at least for me, I am probably a much nicer and more forgiving person IRL than any mutilating Templar PC I'd be playing.  We talk about how it would be stifling or troublesome for a character concept if such a harsh action were forced on the offending PC, but the OOC negotiating would also force me to change my mutilator character's IC reactions and behavior.  If I had a Templar who decided to cut both hands off of another PC, then their player went OOC to ask me to reconsider because of how hard it would be for them, and if I agreed and took it down to one hand, this would be an unrealistic action for my PC.

I think it is good as it is now, requiring consent to actually emote out a graphic act of mutilation, but if the act itself has been decided on IC, it should go ahead, whether RPd out or faded to black.

Having played a PC who mutilated others, I always tended to go for things like ONE eye, or a finger, that wouldn't really affect playability for the offender, just give them a new line of text in the mdesc, a new scar, or a chance to wear an eyepatch.  People who forced my PC's hand would occassionally suffer a more harsh mutiliation, but I think that most people faced with the prospect of becoming a mute or totally blind just forced me to kill them outright rather than go through with it.  And I never just arbitrarily picked some random person and tried to cut their tongue out.  It was always the result of their IC actions, and actually, if you offend or upset a Templar (or anyone else with power) that much, you should expect to be killed.  Being mutilated instead is in some ways an OOC favor allowing you to continue playing.

[Mood]

I think the problem, slipshod, is that some people would rather have their characters killed. I can fully understand why someone wouldn't enjoy playing a character that loses the ability to see, head, speak, or function normally. So, if, out of character, they don't want to be crippled, don't lessen the punishment - just kill them.

[Kyviantre]

There is that as well, if its a major infraction, and you're going to be hacking off limbs, the negotiation -could- be to whack them rather than cripple them.

I wouldn't care what happened as long as it was IC, but there do seem to be people that would rather have their characters snuff it than live while blind/crippled/without a tongue, etc.

It would then be easier to work out whether the punishment could be lessened in a method IC (take one hand and pile on the community service, or the Arm equivalent anyway!), or whether it'd simply be easier for all concerned that they die.

[slipshod]

I have seen this happen in game.. a character faced with mutilation chooses to die instead.  I'm sure the decision is made because of OOC playability considerations, but it does not need to be discussed or negotiated OOC at all.  It can be done entirely IC.  Suicide-by-Templar is quite easy.  If you want your PC to die at the hands of your mutilator rather than live with the disability, throw yourself at their guards and get hacked down or wish up asking for a bleed out death once you're mutilated.  There should be no need to break the scene and discuss it OOCly (beyond the simple consent question and answer for graphic violence).

[Marauder Moe]

I think the game is better served by letting people negotiate.  Even if consent is not required, there's nothing stopping someone from just retiring their maimed/scarred PC.  A PC that got off on a lesser mutilation but continued to play is better, both ICly and OOCly, than one who retired (or suicided) because the player thought he/she was too severely crippled.

Perhaps "consent" is the wrong term.  I don't necessarily think that the power over what happens should be given to the victim.  I just think that there should be a mandatory (so no one feels pressed to not break character) OOC conversation before such an act.  The aggressor outlines his/her intent, the victim then has a chance to accept or suggest an alternative.  This should happen for aesthetic mutilation too, not just functional.  For some characters, like aides, merchants, prostitutes, and other social careers, getting heavily scarred in the face could be more detrimental to playstyle/lifestyle than losing a hand or a tongue.

I know such a concept is a little MUSHy, and contrary to my typical opinions about such things, but I really do think this could make torture/mutilation more common than execution, and that that would be a good thing.

[Seeker]

I am opposed to the idea of limiting the ability of the environment or other players to cause unpleasant things to happen to our characters.

At its core, Armaggedon is a game that rarely shies away from consequences.  Mutilation, even severe mutilation that codedly inhibits the playability of a character, should not be subject to barter, negotiation, or OOC wheedling.  

The World is a nasty place and bad things can happen.  Sometimes you earn them, sometimes not so much.  

If severe mutilation is going to occur, the only options that the receiving character should get would be:

1) Will it be done "off-stage" without emotes or more graphically, through actively RPing the scene, and

2) Will the receiving character live through the horrific process or not.


Seeker

[Salt Merchant]

I don't really see the issue, given that a templar can just kill your character on a whim anyhow. If the templar chooses to remove a character's tongue rather than kill that character, and the character's player doesn't like it, the player can just store the character and move on. It doesn't suck any worse than being executed.

[slipshod]

I agree wholeheartedly with Seeker.  Zalanthas is a harsh and cruel place where actions (and sometimes just proximity) have consequences.

If my Templar is preparing to carve up your PC's face, and your PC makes a living by being pretty, don't go OOC to explain that to me and ask for a different punishment.  Have your PC try to negotiate with mine ICly, beg and plead and barter and wheedle with the Templar and try to get a different punishment that way.

[Marauder Moe]

Any IC negotiation should happen first, of course.

If I were playing a templar and I was making an example of some bard who wrote an insulting song, I'd rather have them around to show off my handiwork rather than dead or retired.  I'd rather have them seen walking around for the rest of their lives with a missing eye or a small scar on the cheek than seen once running to the nearest quit room with a hamburger face.

EDIT: And without asking OOCly, there's no good way to determine how much of an injury a PC will take before they feel like they have to retire.

[Raesanos]

I don't really like the idea of OOC negotiation over IC punishments.  If this was done it'd be limited to a simple yes/no thing.  Want to have your hands hacked off?  No?  Ok, I need to decide on something else.  Like, like murder.

[Marauder Moe]

Well ideally a negotiated punishment would be about at the same severity of the original intent.  Instead of a hand, a few fingers and an eye.  Instead of a nose, a foot and a tongue.

Make the regulating documentation clearly state that the aggressor isn't under any obligation to appease the victim.  Just give them the chance to decide if a different/lesser punishment that won't result in the PC being stored is ICly justifiable for that character.  If not, go for the original treatment or help speed things up and go for death.

(Man... we have some of the most macabre discussions on this forum.)

[jhunter]

I agree with Seeker completely.

[Boggis]

From my experience really bad mutilation doesn't occur unless a player really, really asks for it. People with the power to carry these things out generally are pretty good about not forcing your character into a total dead-end unless you truly force their hand. But I think the option for such punishments to be meted out should be kept the way it is now. Sometimes your char is going to do something that really merits a harsh punishment and if you're in the position where you can't avoid this punishment being visited upon you then tough. If you don't like the outcome of this punishment then store. People who say that Templars just did in their PCs with horrible punishments to take them down a peg.. well.. I'd bet that those punishments could've been avoided if you'd just bowed down a bit, grovelled a bit, showed some respect, begged, pleaded, etc. Imms don't want Templar players offing people or cutting out tongues for no particular reason. If it happens to you... you almost certainly deserved it and could've avoided it.

[mansa]

Again, I realize this, and I'm glad that we're a mature enough player base to talk about torture instead of just killing people out right.

We all deserve a pat on the back.  Yay for roleplay.

[a strange shadow]

I agree with Seeker completely.

[Cale_Knight]

The most I've ever done to a character is cut off a pinky finger. I will never blind someone, or cut out a tongue, or chop off an entire limb. I will scar, tattoo, brand, etc., all of which have lasting impacts without coded penalties.

Likewise, if it happened to my character I'd probably just store. Like some others have said, I have zero interest in playing a cripple. Some may find it interesting, but not me. I also have no interest in making the game less fun for others.

If the situation calls for torture, there are hundreds of ways to do so without actually impacting the PC's future viability, and only a few ways to be a dick about it and potentially ruin a character. If the situation is REALLY bad, there's always execution, though I try to stay away from that as well.

Just because I have the power to ruin a character's life doesn't mean I have the right to ruin a player's game.

[Greve]

I've never seen severe mutilation happen as a result of PC-to-PC interaction, although it evidently has happened now and then. It doesn't seem common, but historically it has been a frequent tool for various purposes. A caught thief loses a hand, the child of a poverty-stricken family may have their leg broken on purpose to better beg for money, spies have had their eyes gouged out and snitches lost their tongues. I don't want to see mutilation as a result of every other confrontation with a templar, but I'm not opposed to the idea of having it as an available option.

It should require staff intervention, though, definitely. I wouldn't trust many players with that kind of power, even if they already have the power to kill you at a whim. Like some others have said, if I don't want to play a cripple then I'd much rather die than be crippled and either have to continue playing an undesirable chracter or feel compelled to store. Storing characters has a negative impact on you as a player, much moreso than getting killed, especially if it happens often. Having it more or less forced upon you would suck.

[psionic fungus]

I simply cannot understand the mentality that says death is better than mutilation.  None of you in real life would make such a choice if actually faced with it.  Why would your characters?  It's really simple to store a character you don't want to play... And I will tell you that if I'm in a situation where I'm about to remove someone's eyes, tongue, or limb and they OOCly disallow it, their character will be dead.  I have never seen anyone in this game maimed purely for someone elses sadistic pleasure.  It is always done as a punishment for severe and/or repeated infractions.  The alternative is death, and I can't understand why anyone would choose it.

Mutilation = Reversable
Death = Permenant
Mutilation = Choices
Death = Game Over

No one is ever forced to play a cripple.  If you are crippled and don't want to play a cripple you actually have more than one option.  Storage or suicide are not the only alternatives. Zalanthas is a world of MAGICK, and while it might cause conflicts with your character, and it might open up a whole realm of roleplay that you never would've gotten involved with otherwise, it is certainly a viable option.

Mutilation = Roleplaying Opportunity
Death = No Opportunity

Again... Where's the beef?

edit:

Storing characters has a negative impact on you as a player, much moreso than getting killed, especially if it happens often.

Uh... How do you figure?  How is storing more negative than being killed?  Do your characters currently get frequently crippled so that you have to store them?  If not... Why are you worried?

[spawnloser]

I am opposed to the idea of limiting the ability of the environment or other players to cause unpleasant things to happen to our characters.

At its core, Armaggedon is a game that rarely shies away from consequences.  Mutilation, even severe mutilation that codedly inhibits the playability of a character, should not be subject to barter, negotiation, or OOC wheedling.  

The World is a nasty place and bad things can happen.  Sometimes you earn them, sometimes not so much.  

If severe mutilation is going to occur, the only options that the receiving character should get would be:

1) Will it be done "off-stage" without emotes or more graphically, through actively RPing the scene, and

2) Will the receiving character live through the horrific process or not.

So, all of this should apply to rape as well?  The only thing the player gets to decide is whether thee player has to see it and if their character will live through it, right?

Oh, and what about those places where the consequence of, say, typing 'north' aren't able to be figured out from the clues available by everyone?  Like places that are basically instant-death in this game.  Will we have stuff like these places where people may end up mutilated?

How about NPCs?  What about making them maim instead of kill like some animals end up doing in the real world?  That guy that gets away from the bear and crawls his happy ass out of the woods maimed but alive.  How do we implement this?

Just in case what I am saying has not been understood by all, I am 100% for NOT having automatic scarring by anything, or anyone.  I would prefer staff to be included on every every instance, because there some people just ain't gonna have fun with certain things.  Some people do NOT want to play a rape victim, so they are not forced.  Some people do NOT want to play maimed or crippled person to the degree that others will.

Some of you do not mind at all, and you do not understand those that do mind, just as they do not understand why you can enjoy playing that.  Accept it anyway, everyone.  It is my belief that cold, harsh, automatic scarring as dictated by a computer and not able to be bent like suggested very well may push some players away from the game, and is unlikely to attract new players.  Armageddon may be harsh, but it doesn't have to be the harshest in all ways imaginable.

[Gimfalisette]

Just because I have the power to ruin a character's life doesn't mean I have the right to ruin a player's game.

Totally agree. I would be happy to see play-altering mutilation require OOC consent. I don't want the power to force anyone into an unplayable, unenjoyable situation for their character, and I don't want anyone to be able to put me in that situation either.

Arguments that "but this is what my character would do" are very shallow. Your character probably has at least three to five different, totally IC possible solutions to the situation, without having to resort to play-altering mutilation.

[slipshod]

Again, when I have been in a position to, my PCs never maimed or mutilated other PCs for no reason.  It was always done a consequence of their IC actions.  To say that I would then be forcing a situation on someone that they don't want to play out, isn't correct.  They brought the situation upon themselves by their behavior or actions leading up to it.

And I have been explicitly clear in my posts to refer to mutilation and not rape.  This is not a conversation about the consent rule where it applies to rape, and I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that a player should be forced to deal with playing a rape victim, whether it was RPd or faded out.  This thread is about mutilation.

So spawnloser, to answer your question:
No, it should not apply to rape as well.

And to address this comment: "Some people do NOT want to play maimed or crippled person to the degree that others will."

I highly suggest, then, that those people do not play characters who commit crimes and defy authority.  I see the argument... someone who just wants to have fun playing a pickpocket but would not have any fun playing a cripple, and being crippled would ruin their concept.  Well... this is not that type of game.  We strive for a degree of realism, and consequences of actions are a large component of that.  Besides, as others have pointed out, in these situations there is still plenty of room for IC negotiating with your would-be-mutilator.

As for spawnloser's other questions, about rooms or NPCs that force mutilation on people... I'll leave those to others in this thread.  I am only discussing PC on PC mutilation.

[Seeker]

Spawnloser,

The policy about rape is not in question, nor under discussion in this thread.  Irrelevant derailment.

Code consequences and NPC scripts are not part of the question posed by the O.P., and are not the issue at hand.  Irrelevant derailment.

No one has suggested automatic scarring or maiming of any type should be implemented, nor suggested it was desirable.  It seems that you have created this as an argument out of thin air, just so that you could debate against yourself.

I don't see how any of your post addresses my belief that manditory OOC negotiation between characters in a maiming scene is not a desirable policy to implement.

I stand by my opinion that these are the appropriate choices for the victim of a severe maiming event:

Fade or play
Die under the event, or live.


Seeker

[Marauder Moe]

*hysterics*  Won't somebody please think of the templars?

It's not necessarily about choice for the victim, it's about choice for the aggressor.  You can't choose at what point someone considers an injury to severe to play.  You can choose whether or not to bring it to that point or not, though, but only if you know where it is.  Only way to find out is to OOCly ask.

[spawnloser]

No, Seeker, it is a cogent analogy.  Some people do not want to play rape victims, so there is an OOC consent for it... not only to proceed with the scene or fade, but whether rape happens at all.  I'm not saying that rape should not require the consent it does, but I am comparing mutilation to this.  Mutilation can be quite traumatizing to people, and to those that have NOT suffered such, you can not imagine what it is like to have.  Some people can draw comparisons to other things and thus begin to understand, but that is how we must understand all things we do not have direct experience with.  Some people are uncomfortable being forced to roleplay something that they do not understand and/or do not want to try to understand.

It sure sounded to me like people were suggesting it... like using the word 'codedly' ... but I may have been mistaken.  Fine, 'mutilations supported by code,' still applies to what I'm talking about.  You can NOT find out if the player is uncomfortable playing someone that has been mutilated without communicating with that player.  Trying to do it under the cover of IC actions, like struggle and blah blah... is edging into territory where you WILL be required to use OOC to ask for consent for graphic content.  What if the person says, "No consent, fade."  What do you do?  You probably will type something like, "ooc Okay, as a punishment, my character cuts out your eyes."  Now, how do you resolve this issue ICly for the person being maimed?  "em struggles and escapes before %templar knife reaches ^me eyes!"  That look good?  No, the person has to say something like, "ooc No, my character would have struggled until it was impossible for you to do that."

I'm saying that there has to be some OOC amount of respect, and that you can find many ways to punish people without maiming or killing, keep the plots moving by letting people survive some times, especially if you're in a leadership position.

[ale six]

I wonder why we're arguing so hard about this - have there been in game issues with people getting mutilated or a rash of complaints that warrant such heated debate, or are we as players just incapable of discussing something without getting heated?

FWIW, I agree with all the people saying mutilation is good and shouldn't need OOC consent or anything. If a PC is in a position to cut off your hand/arm/tongue, they also seem to be in a position to cut off your HEAD... ie kill you. If they choose to let you live and you don't want to keep playing, great. At least they gave you the choice to continue the PC or not.

[Marauder Moe]

I wonder why we're arguing so hard about this - have there been in game issues with people getting mutilated or a rash of complaints that warrant such heated debate, or are we as players just incapable of discussing something without getting heated?

We're bored... or at least I am.  Arguing on the GDB is a moderately stimulating way to pass the time.

[Yokunama]

No, Seeker, it is a cogent analogy.  Some people do not want to play rape victims, so there is an OOC consent for it...

I think you are misunderstanding some things, Spawnloser.
As said before, you can not escape rape if the conditions are against you. OOC consent do one of the two: A) Roleplay the rape scene. B) Fast-foward past the rape scene. Either way, you are a victim of rape.

Rape is not the topic of discussion here either.

[Marauder Moe]

No, Seeker, it is a cogent analogy.  Some people do not want to play rape victims, so there is an OOC consent for it...

I think you are misunderstanding some things, Spawnloser.
As said before, you can not escape rape if the conditions are against you. OOC consent do one of the two: A) Roleplay the rape scene. B) Fast-foward past the rape scene. Either way, you are a victim of rape.

For the sake of correctness... that's not true.  If you don't consent, it doesn't happen.  Read the docs about it more closely.

And even though Spawnloser and I seem to be interested in a similar outcome, I don't think I agree that torture needs the same consideration as rape.  The defining factor is that rape happens far more frequently than torture in the playerbase's demographic.

[Yokunama]

No, Seeker, it is a cogent analogy.  Some people do not want to play rape victims, so there is an OOC consent for it...

I think you are misunderstanding some things, Spawnloser.
As said before, you can not escape rape if the conditions are against you. OOC consent do one of the two: A) Roleplay the rape scene. B) Fast-foward past the rape scene. Either way, you are a victim of rape.

For the sake of correctness... that's not true.  If you don't consent, it doesn't happen.  Read the docs about it more closely.

And even though Spawnloser and I seem to be interested in a similar outcome, I don't think I agree that torture needs the same consideration as rape.  The defining factor is that rape happens far more frequently than torture in the playerbase's demographic.

Without that consent, the plotline may NOT be pursued.

Yep. Yep. I stand corrected.

[Seeker]

Perhaps trying to frame the disagreements might help.  

All of these options assume that the proper consent for graphic scenes are followed, and do not take into regard whether they are "off-stage" without emotes, or are RPed in various levels of detail.

Option A
A victim of a scene where severe mutilization is the intended outcome should be able to OOC refuse the actuality of the scene, forcing an alternative outcome not involving mutilization.  (similiar to the current rape rules).

Option B
Both victim(s) and instigator(s) of a scene whose intended outcome will be severe mutilization are required to OOC barter and negotiate the actual mutilization and its effects in a give and take manner as long as it takes for both parties to reach agreement.

Option C
The current set-up.  A character is subject to whatever IG consequences are realistic without any OOC bartering or limitations.

In all options, murdering the intended victim is still permissable, and the player of the victim can still decide that their PC would not survive the ordeal, either by wishing up or by storage.

Fair framing?


Seeker

[Mood]

Mm... I can see how an OOC conversation about the scene might detract from it for both parties involved. Because of this, I'm inclined to agree with Seeker - play it out, and if you don't wish to play a badly mutilated character, then store or wish up for a death.

[Marauder Moe]

I think I'm technically proposing option B except that final consensus is not required.  The victim simply needs to be able to express that a proposed torture is too severe for their personal standards of "playable" and going through with it will likely result in a storage request.

[spawnloser]

Forcing character storage or suicide, having to submit a request... that is forcing more and more OOC inconvenience on someone because they are not comfortable with something.  This seems quite crass and unfeeling to me.

I prefer something more like option B, where both parties can reach an agreement on something so that there is punishment and that it needn't be death or mutilation.

[mansa]

Seeing from the list...

I perfer C, avoid B like the plague, and would settle on A.

[Malken]

Is this entire conversation because of something that happened in game recently?

What I mean by that is that it seems to me that I haven't seen too many "crippled" characters by Templars and such, and the ones who were considered "tortured" always came back with painful experiences and probably mentally traumatizing experiences but no one ever went too far as to totally cripple down the character to the point where someone would want to retire his or her character..

What I FEAR from this conversation is that if everyone starts agreeing that we shouldn't have to ask consent to start chopping down limbs and poking daggers in character's eyes, that the ones who were always trying to be considerate and not totally cripple down a character and try to find other ways to "punish" would just start thinking that it's alright that, say, if someone is caught stealing, to just cut down his or her's hand instead of just giving him a good whippin'.

It's my opinion that if someone does something that is "light" enough to allow him to live, that punishments that doesn't totally cripple a character should be given (Give him a scar, brand him with a tattoo of your city, give them a public whipping, etc..), and if, in your character's mind, what that person did is something major, well, in a world like Armageddon, if you're willing to cut off that person's limbs, then you might as well just kill him, since, morally, you wouldn't really care either way..

[Raesanos]

We could add another option to that list of 3.  Give victims o' mutilation the option of OOCing "I'd prefer that this operation kill me in the process if you don't mind, thanks".  No negotiation or anything, it would just save the suicide (potentially unrealistic) or the storage request (usage of staff time) so its easier for everybody.

[Mood]

We could add another option to that list of 3.  Give victims o' mutilation the option of OOCing "I'd prefer that this operation kill me in the process if you don't mind, thanks".  No negotiation or anything, it would just save the suicide (potentially unrealistic) or the storage request (usage of staff time) so its easier for everybody.

This seems like the best option to me.

[Marauder Moe]

We could add another option to that list of 3.  Give victims o' mutilation the option of OOCing "I'd prefer that this operation kill me in the process if you don't mind, thanks".  No negotiation or anything, it would just save the suicide (potentially unrealistic) or the storage request (usage of staff time) so its easier for everybody.

And what would be your thoughts, then, if the initiator wanted to do something else to let his/her victim live?

I don't think a templar having a brief spark of mercy is any less IC/realistic than mutilation victims commonly failing to survive the proccess or vanishing completely from the face of Zalanthas shortly afterwards.


Let mat at least ask this: with the current policy, what would be the staff's opinion of a victim who, after being prompted for consent, OOCly requested a more playable punishment?  Innapropriate?

[Raesanos]

And what would be your thoughts, then, if the initiator wanted to do something else to let his/her victim live?

Good question.  I'd be fine with the initiator doing that, even if the victim cannot request it.

Let mat at least ask this: with the current policy, what would be the staff's opinion of a victim who, after being prompted for consent, OOCly requested a more playable punishment?  Innapropriate?

I wouldn't mind, right now there are no guidelines on this so I wouldn't feel like the person was breaking the rules.

[Maybe42or54]

I've never seen severe mutilation happen as a result of PC-to-PC interaction, although it evidently has happened now and then. It doesn't seem common, but historically it has been a frequent tool for various purposes.

The problem in which "You wouldn't choose death over being maimed in real life," is that, I would rather die, than be severely maimed.

Now, this is why I don't choose to play a cripple in a game.
I play the game to have fun. Being forced to RP out that I can't speak, or see, isn't what I call fun. It might be fun toyou, good on you. I enjoy other things.

[X-D]

First.

None of you in real life would make such a choice if actually faced with it.

Patently untrue. I, in fact Would.

As to question at hand, I like the simple options stated by Raesanos and Seeker.

person doing the torture asks one of these.
Ooc ask for consent to scene involving torture to be including permanent mutilation non-crippling.

Ooc Ask for consent to scene involving torture to be including permanent mutilation crippling, (here you state type)

victem possible choices to first one.
ooc Yup, lets do it.


ooc No fade.

possible choices for second one.

ooc Yup, lets do it.

ooc Yup lets do it, my PC should die from it thankyou.

ooc No Fade.

ooc No Fade, PC should die from it thankyou.


At which point, would be torturer could either go along now ending OOC or possibly ask If player would go along with Any other crippling mutilation.

Simple, easy, fast.

[Malken]

None of you in real life would make such a choice if actually faced with it.

As someone who believes and his ancestors believed in reincarnation, I can honestly tell you that this is a choice that many would and have made in the past.

Who knows what the citizens of Armageddon believe in?

[Marauder Moe]

The docs state that the citizens of Armageddon value their own lives over just about anything.  That's why any discussion of the playability of an inflicted injury needs to be done OOCly.

[Cale_Knight]

The docs say a lot of things.

[Shiroi Tsuki]

I don't know, I personally love anything that'll let my character keep living while giving me a story.  Then again, I'm the kind of person that shoots my fist into the air when something in the game gives me an excuse to add a scar, or even (gasp) modify my main description.

Though I think it would be hard to RP not having eyes, a tongue, etc, it wouldn't be impossible, and therefore I'd give it a shot for as long as I could until I died/got bored, just like I would with anything else.

I don't think you should have the option to consent to be mutilated by someone that has the power to do so.  It just isn't... I don't know, I'm not looking for realistic, but I think the game is designed to be harsh.  Yeah, loosing your tongue is harsh - but so is dying, the other thing that would probably be happening to you if you weren't being mutilated, I mean you obviously did something to someone in power - and then you could always store or go sit in the Silt Sea if you don't like playing that way.

[psionic fungus]

While it is easy to -say- you would choose death over mutilation I will believe it when I see it.  I was nearly blinded when I was hit in the face with a maglite, and I can tell you that I got used to the idea -very- quickly, because I was -very- grateful to be alive.

On another note, I personally have been mugged, burglarized, stabbed, "sapped", sexually abused, and "tortured" physically and mentally for years... And I advocate these things happening in the game without consent or even warning. I understand why rape is not allowed, but the unexpected and the extreme are why I play a -harsh- themed game and not "happy elves fucking in the forest".

I don't expect fantasy novels to have a list of possibly offensive scenes, that would ruin it. I don't expect it in movies, or television, or ANYTHING. It is not up to any media to protect their audience from their own neurosis. The furthest any other media goes is to state a rating such as "mature". Even network television will depict rape with no warning, though if it is graffic there are sometimes disclaimers...

Last I heard Armageddon was rated "mature". Guess what, I play Armageddon because it is a "mature" mud. Let's keep it that way.

[jhunter]

Again, when I have been in a position to, my PCs never maimed or mutilated other PCs for no reason. It was always done a consequence of their IC actions. To say that I would then be forcing a situation on someone that they don't want to play out, isn't correct. They brought the situation upon themselves by their behavior or actions leading up to it.

QFMFT.

If I was the one in the position of power, I would hate it to turn out that if I decide to perform some mutilation for a punishment (to avoid killing the pc while still giving them a codedly tangible punishment and to give them the option to decide after that if they wish to continue playing it out) they could just say "No, I don't consent to being left with an injury." Then forcing me to kill them.

The only option for the victim (since they CHOSE to put themselves in this situation in the first place) should be if they wish their pc to survive the mutilation or not. That would be acceptable to me.

[Maybe42or54]

How would you feel if you mutilated a character and they just stored, or attacked a random soldier unarmed.

[Seeker]

How would you feel if you mutilated a character and they just stored, or attacked a random soldier unarmed.

Blithely unconcerned.


Seeker

[Malken]

How would you feel if you mutilated a character and they just stored, or attacked a random soldier unarmed.

I'd think they are pretty bad roleplayers and would wish them luck on their next dwarven warrior.

[Yokunama]

How would you feel if you mutilated a character and they just stored, or attacked a random soldier unarmed.

Retarted, because I could have killed them firsthand.

[Malken]

But I think it would be pretty neat to have one of those wooden crossbows instead of a lower leg. If you're going to cut off my leg, then at least allow me to attach a crossbow to my missing limb afterward.

[Maybe42or54]

I don't share that sentiment. I'd rather kill someone outright than maim them so bad they retire or do things that their character wouldn't do in those circumstances. That would also make one more player that would just "naturally" stay away from your character. Other characters hear about it, they are probably more likely to stay away. This is all in my own opinion. But I've seen it happen still. I know a few players that were mutilated or otherwise made unplayable for the enjoyment of the game that don't play arm anymore because of it.

[jhunter]

How would you feel if you mutilated a character and they just stored, or attacked a random soldier unarmed.

Blithely unconcerned.


Seeker

[Tisiphone]

How would you feel if you mutilated a character and they just stored, or attacked a random soldier unarmed.

I'd think they are pretty bad roleplayers and would wish them luck on their next dwarven warrior.

Hey. Dwarven warriors can have depth too.

[alger]

Personally I don't like playing totally mutilated characters though if someone cut off both my arms and let me live, instead of storing or killing myself I'd probably go to the extent of something like going straight to a "Dragon" like being, get six more arms then go back and beat up the bastard who mutilated me after which I'll cut off all his limbs.

My opinion about mutilation is it's a fantasy game which means if you do not like playing a mutilated character there are several ways around it.

[Akoto]

I'm a bit late into the discussion, but I thought I'd chime in on the original question.

Mutilation is a thematic form of punishment. If the authority figure feels their interests would be better served by it, so be it. Many have already said that certain scars can provide depth and history to role-play. I agree.

That said, I believe there's a line. Some kinds of mutilation - total blindness, loss of both legs, etc - stand a chance of coming off as OOCly vindictive. It's pretty common sense that such injuries would ruin most peoples' characters, particularly in a world as harsh as Zalanthas. If the crime was severe enough to warrant such an extreme mutilation, I'd personally do the player a favor and just conduct an execution.

It's important to remember that a real person sits behind every character, and they want to have fun too.

Mind you, even severe physical disabilities are fun for some people. I had a great time playing an elderly guy who was created blind and hard of hearing. Hilarity ensued every time he decided to cast a lightning bolt.

[FightClub]

Cut out my tongue, eyes, arms, legs it doesn't bother me...  You mutilate the nether regions and it's a one way path to storage or off the shield wall.

[Angela Christine]

I prefer mutilation that makes you ugly to mutilation that interferes with your L33T skillz.  Being ugly is easier to work with.

[Nile]

I like being hated.

Mutilated half-breed 'rinthers for the win.

Note to self: Make that char.

[Agent_137]

better mutilated than killed, always, I say.

But sometimes mutilated will effectively destroy a character's goals. And If I can't come up with new goals for that char, I won't have a direction for him, which means I won't enjoy playing, which means i won't log in, which means after weeks of logging in some one will say "why don't you play anymore" and I'll say, "Oh, because i'm bored with my char. I'll store him."

So mutilate away, mutilators. Have a mutil, mutil, mutilrificday.


edit:

by the way, i'd like to take the time to support non PK forms of punishment/dealing with less powerful characters. Too often a simple PK gets the job done because it's simple and clean and mistakenly thought to be thematic. Well, it's simple alright, but it's definitely not clean, and definitely not thematic.

When you have such scarce resources on a world like zalanthas, the only lives that aren't worth the clothes on their back to an authority figure are the stupid and weak. Better to make someone your bitch and get some use out of them and make their life miserable than to simply end it and have to have the mess cleaned up.

And this also coincides with the good OOC goal of encouraging plotlines and character interaction. You can scream IC only all you want, but if there are no plotlines and interaction, I might as well just go play fallout and get REALLY into my character.

[Raesanos]

I added this to the consent help file, I limited a bit from what I was originally thinking based on this conversation.

In the case of mutilation, an action that would cause a character
to lose their ability to function in some way, the victim may
request that they be killed by the precedure.  It is then the
instigator's responsibility to attempt to kill the victim, or take
some other appropriate course of action.  The victim should not
request other punishments, bargain, or otherwise discuss the
situation out of character beyond this provision.

[Marauder Moe]

So under this new rule can the instigator, upon being told that the player would rather have death, OOCly offer some other punishment?  Can they OOCly ask the victim for suggestions?

[Raesanos]

So under this new rule can the instigator, upon being told that the player would rather have death, OOCly offer some other punishment?  Can they OOCly ask the victim for suggestions?

Sorry this is going to be a non-answer, but I don't think we need a black and white rule for this, so fall back on the general guideline of "use OOC as little as possible."  I doubt this kind of conversation would ever be truly necessary but see no need to rule it out.

[Marauder Moe]

Meh, fair enough.

[Agent_137]

i think this is a slippery slope, and caution against having to get OOC consent for any IC action but rape.

[BlackMagic0]

I think that torture that makes someone so cripple they have to beg, or pay someone to take care of them just to live, is something that should be asked OOC, if they say "No" Then they die. Simple as that, there is no "getting out of it by saying NO" you either die or become crippled. Its your fault for doing the act and knowing what would happen.  Its atleast a RP way to end the character. By getting killed.

Also, I think forced enslavement is something that is a touchie subject. Because forced enslavement can ruin someones hours apon hours-planed RP, just becomes someone beats them up and says "You are my bitch! NOW!" This one wouldn't need OOC consent at all. Again if you are the victim and don't want to be a slave, either try running or fight and die honorablely. Its better then storing in my thoughts.

That is BlackMagic's two cents, enjoy.  :shock:  Yes I got cents.. ^^

[BlackMagic0]

-edit sorry, double post-

[Is Friday]

Sorry, I know this is late, but I was reading and came across "blindness/deafness mutilation". If this were the case and someone's eyes were taken or their ears, in the real world the body adapts and improves its other senses. (Blind people hear very well normally, and vice versa, deaf people see very well.)

It would be neat if you could LOOK farther (begin to develop that) or LISTEN with more success or whatever if you were mutilated in that respect.

And, speaking from inexperience: What happens if you have your ears taken? You still hear says but must roleplay not? Roleplay watching lips, etc?

[spawnloser]

There is deafness and blindness code in already.  They are crippling and would make the game very much not fun for the person permanently afflicted.  You don't even see says and tells when deaf.  You can't tell what room you're in because there aren't enough non-visual things for your character to investigate (most rooms don't have scent messages for example).

Deaf and blind PCs in game are generally not afflicted with coded conditions, but roleplay the character in such a way that they would not notice things that they should not.

[psionic fungus]

Just to clarify, though it should be obvious, it is much easier to play a deaf PC than a blind PC... Especially with coded afflictions.  Truly blind PCs are rarely functional outside of a few specific circumstances...