Mutilation

[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.