Mutilation

[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.