PK poll one

[My 2 sids]

Okay, so we've had a few discussions on PK and hatred in which some have suggested PKs are the only way to ensure people don't try to retaliate.  So, I'm wondering if players would allow their PCs to be punished, insulted, threatned, beaten, humiliated, enslaved, etc.  w/o trying to seek revenge.   I mean, it seems a lot of times things boil down to "Do I trust the player of this grubber not to try and retaliate over my noble?"

[X-D]

Not voting,  two of my possible choices are not there.

Namely, Yes, but if the oportunity came for revenge I'd take it.

And, No, but he can fake it.

[Barzalene]

I'm not voting either because I don't agree that pks are a bad thing. So, I don't see the point in finding alternatives to them.

I have found that overwhelmingly the player-base is already behaving very responsibly. Occasionally you will find a newbie idiot, but they that newbie idiot probably isn't interested in finding alternatives to pking.

[My 2 sids]

Okay, so my follow up question would be...

If society is hierarchtical, how does one justify lower-classes trying to seek revenge?   How about why a noble should really care if some no-body lowly aide got into a spat with some other lowly aide in the Gaj?  

[Barzalene]

Why have people been slashed with box cutters for stepping on someone's shoes on the subway?

[My 2 sids]

Why have people been slashed with box cutters for stepping on someone's shoes on the subway?

Strange analogy, but still waaay out of the norm reaction.    This thread is more about what the norm should be vs. what the norm is because of OOC reasons.

[Barzalene]

I see your point. And to some extent I do agree. If your aide and your friend's aide have a fight, then you would tell your aide to behave. If it's the fault of your friend's aide, chances are you can ask your friend to correct the problem.

If your ally's aide causes a problem, you decide if it's worth complaining about.

If an acquaintance's aide causes a problem you would usually tell your aide to take care of their own issues, unless they are rendering your aide in some way useless in which case you might complain or retaliate, depending on the value of the aide.

But what if it's your enemy? Or what if it happens on a day when you're feeling mean? Then an overreaction might be understandable icly, and ocly move things forward. Do you go around killing people's aides cause they bother yours? Of course not, there has to be more to it than that

OOcly we know that conflict is good for the game. Aide problems should rarely rise to the level of a real problem for nobles. It's just an aide. They're replaceable. They're interchangeable.

[X-D]

If society is hierarchtical, how does one justify lower-classes trying to seek revenge?   How about why a noble should really care if some no-body lowly aide got into a spat with some other lowly aide in the Gaj?  

You don't. Personaly I think that when a city commoner does do these things, Most the time staff should step in, freeze the account and tell them to come back after they have read the docs.

Same applies for nobles. Nobles should always try to remember they are So far above commoners that they cannot smell the stink if they are throwing it around.

As to PK, its a good thing...not enough right now...Meh.

[touringCompl3t3]

It's funny the amount of fuss that this poll is raising, given the potential breakthrough that a group understanding of this complicated issue is. 

It boils down to trust. 

I've wanted to post about this....

......I mean, go to a construction yard, go to a biker bar, go drinking with marines some time -- you'll see big, macho dudes talk a lot of shit to each other, and get into conflicts.

Very rarely, you will see a fight.

But you don't see people shooting each other or stabbing each other very often, except in the movies.  Most of the time that two dudes get into a scuffle with each other, they might throw a few punches to let their aggression out, but after that they will want to back down and try to save some face.

I'm not saying that people should PK each other less, but I am saying that people should choose to PK each other for more realistic reasons than just because they got into an argument.  It's realism.

[Maybe42or54]

I would prefer to see more rivalry without ending dead than currently. Everytime I get someone pissed at me = I have to die. It is really hard to continue to piss people off IG.

[Adiadochokinesis]

I would prefer to see more rivalry without ending dead than currently. Everytime I get someone pissed at me = I have to die. It is really hard to continue to piss people off IG.

It seems like this has been getting better.

[Lizzie]

I found myself in 42/54's scenario on the other side with a previous character. She had a mental list of everyone she wanted to kill. Anyone who pissed her off, anyone who was mean, or tried to cheat her, anyone who was intentionally ill-mannered, was on that list. From templars to rinth-rats. Suffice it to say she had a pretty big list - most Zalanthans, I've discovered, are either eager to piss people off, or mean, or try to cheat other people, or are intenionally ill-mannered. There aren't all that many sincerely "nice" PCs in the game. Which is fine...but it makes for a pretty exhausting list of "people my PC needs to kill if she survives long enough to be capable of killing people."

Fortunately for everyone on the list, she died before ever learning how to kill a single person.

[Dakurus]

Death is very Zalanthas. I'm not so sure killing is, for your typical everyday Zalanthan.
Starvation, disease, sickness, overwork, beatings, accidents, hunting and other such factors likely make death fairly commonplace, but in nearly every community and culture on Zalanthas there are laws against assault and murder. Pretty clear laws, and in a fair amount of places the law is pretty heavy handed.
Now sure, like any other crime, murder happens, and I'm sure at a higher rate then we're used to, but likely still in the minor percentages.

Player characters don't tend to be a great reflection of the typical Zalanthan population unfortunately. They tend experience things your typical Zalanthan doesn't, involve themselves in activities, go to distant locales, gather wealth, and have much less dull occupations. Most characters are more akin to a burning sparkler (sometimes a pretty long one), then the slow burning tallow candle of a typical zalanthan. This means more focus, more attention, and a limited playing pool where it's far far easier to clash with others in the pool. And most things involving player characters burn as quick and bright as players themselves, which includes their conflicts.

Killing is by far the most effective conflict resolver. In one action, that particular opposition is gone, the chance for direct revenge extinguished, opportunities for a lengthy grudge or annoyance denied, and quite possibility breathing room achieved as it may be a length of time before another player takes up an opposition role, if at all. Did I mention the sense of power, and adrenaline rush? Torturing, embarrassment, and other such options can be lots of fun as an alternative, but leave so many loose ends and assured followup issues that I usually see them more neglected except by those that are so confident in their power and position that they don't mind having LIVING enemies.

I think that killing satisfies multiple IC and OOC goals and is currently often the easiest and most final solution. (This isn't to say it's easy, nor that you won't get in a load of trouble.) People will be less inclined to use it as an option, when the negatives to doing it, outweigh the percieved gains.

[JustAnotherGuy]

I personally see it as something that add to the RP value, but I know with my currently Character... he'd go to the ends of the world to try to get back at the person that did it to him... hence my choice.  But he'd probably end up dead...  or beaten again.. hehe.

[X-D]

I usually see them more neglected except by those that are so confident in their power and position that they don't mind having LIVING enemies.

Actually, when you get to that point you go out of your way to make them just to have something to do.

If I have a 20 day warrior(or most other classes) If he makes an enemy, the focus will be to kill. But if I have a 50+ day PC...Meh....beat em down, take the pants and shoes and mount and be on your way:)

[Kalden]

If someone isn't an outright dangerous enemy, I'll always give them a chance to make good. If they don't do things right, they die. It's pretty simple.

With a dangerous enemy, you have to crush them totally. Two ways to do that: befriend them, or destroy them. The former is often too risky.

This idea that in a hierarchical society you can't plot revenge against your betters is ridiculous. It's ahistorical. Revolutions have often been plotted by the underlings, and there have been plenty of them. It's great if Joe Commoner decides that he's going to avenge his dead sister by killing the Templar. Obviously his chances of success are slim to nil.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I have no problems with conflict. Battle makes the world go around.

[Ghost]

Well said Dakurus.

Torturing, embarrassment, and other such options can be lots of fun as an alternative, but leave so many loose ends and assured followup issues that I usually see them more neglected except by those that are so confident in their power and position that they don't mind having LIVING enemies.

Unless you are a templar, you will find it by experience that you really should kill your enemies in Arm.  If you let them go, by whatever reasons and whatever conditions or whatever the kind of fear you put in them, they almost always get back and let's remember, dying is very easy on arm.  No matter who you are (unless you are a templar... well, maybe noble too) you can be killed very easily.  Entire organisations can be wiped out, your best henchmen can be killed by the very person whose arms and legs were broken and was told worse would happen to him and his family if he pisses you off again.  Well, he will come back.

Unless you really kill like crazy (like several dozens crazy) including mages, scary monsters or even defilers for a few pc generations, your rivals will almost always come back.  If you however give an image of death and destruction, then chances are you won't be bothered for most, but only for folks who might want some fat loot.  From that point on, leaving someone alive is an option.

About nobles or aides:  I don't think nobles should really give a shit about what aide#1 is going through and how aide#3 is making fun of her.  If it is someone high ranking I would understand.  But aide is something you just recruit from the streets.  Even if you lose one of them, the other one will be on the streets too.  I don't think the noble should be bothered that his aide lost a pissing contest to another noble's aide.  If it is a rival noble, I think it is -your aide's- responsibility to be creative and not lose any pissing contest.  That is how you as a noble will know who really is a go getter and who is a bugger.

[Doppelganger]

Unless you are a templar, you will find it by experience that you really should kill your enemies in Arm.

It is worth to clarify that you should kill player as well as character. Otherwise,

Well, he will come back.

Murdering his family and RL friends is wise, using weapons of mass destruction is a plus, but you should deal with his AIM list first.

[Barzalene]

Unless you are a templar, you will find it by experience that you really should kill your enemies in Arm.

It is worth to clarify that you should kill player as well as character. Otherwise,

Well, he will come back.

Murdering his family and RL friends is wise, using weapons of mass destruction is a plus, but you should deal with his AIM list first.

I love our players. They're all silly.

[Maybe42or54]

I just like to harass my enemies until them, their friends, and their friends start ignoring me. Which actually is more of a problem for me than them killing me, oddly enough. I also prefer it less.

[Ghost]

Well, he will come back.

Murdering his family and RL friends is wise, using weapons of mass destruction is a plus, but you should deal with his AIM list first.

words of wisdom

[Malken]

Wow, I'm the only one who doesn't trust any of you, that's awesome!

[Dresan]

I've never pked or been pked by anyone really (well not true but one involved a magic insta screwed spell, the other method is extremely frowned upon by the staff now). I personally hate the crime code and wished it only worked for nobles, templars and special locations like taverns and maybe crowded vnpc places. People fighting and dying brings conflict and alot of fun to the game and i think people would setting for humiliating people if they think that if they need to they'll be able to kill them off just as easy later on.

Also I don't know why thier character being humilated or insulted in anyway is such a big deal for people though bordom/ nothing else to worry about probably has something to do with it. I was once robbed blind in the desert (again magic) but when i woke up the only thing me and my character could think of is 'HaHa, i'm still alive', he shrugged it off as an unfortunately expense and moved on with his life, at least it made a good story to tell his friends later on, i could have found out who they were and reported them but meh too much trouble had better things to do. 

[Rindan]

It really depends on the level of conflict.  If you are talking about two organizational heads, I am all for killing and calling it a day.  If senior agent Kurac kills rival senior agent Kadius in his battle to secure resource X or make a deal with person Y, so be it.  When it comes to fights between commoners, or conflicts between commoners and nobles, I take a different view.  I see nothing wrong with organizational heads (be they nobles, merchants, whatever) trying to decapitate other organizational heads with murder.

When a commoner gets the pissed beat out of him by a noble/templar, 99% of time that commoner should thank Tek that they are still alive, suck it up, and deal with it.  Getting beaten down by your betters is simply life, and you stand absolutely no chance of getting revenge.  Unless they have done something REALLY horrible to you, like enslaved and raped your family, seeking vengeance over a bloody nose, a few bruises, and some lost dignity is just dumb.  You probably can't even conceive of how  you would get vengeance, much less want to take the absurd risk in getting it.  At worst, the most you might think of doing is putting yourself in the power of a rival "great power" who might actually have the resources to get some sort of revenge.  For most people though, getting beaten up by a noble is like an angel coming down from heaven and kicking the shit out of you.  You are more likely to try and avoid getting beaten up in the future than plot to kill god.

When it comes to the reverse situation, with a noble deciding if he should smack the crap out of a commoner or kill him, I think nobles should generally show some level of restrain and quickly escalate to murder.  A commoner shows disrespect should probably be humiliated in some non-lethal way.  A commoner who persists in showing disrespect after "corrective measures" have been taken should probably be disposed of and be made an example of.  You do this not because you fear that particular commoner.  You do this to drive home the point that disrespecting your betters is a very bad idea.  You are instructing ALL commoners why it is a bad idea to be disrespectful, not showing that one commoner why it is a bad idea.  Generally, the more showy and public the punishment, the more instructive the example is to an audience.  Nobles maintain their positions by constantly reinforcing that they are powerful, must be respected, and that those who don't will suffer.  All that said, I think nobles and Templars should be given a lot of latitude in how they deal with problems.  Nobles and Templars are clearly the ones in power and as such can safely indulge their propensity to be bloody minded, sadistic, murderous, or magnanimous so long as their actions don't make them seem low.  A noble who kills at the first overt sign of disrespect wouldn't bother me in the slightest, nor would one that tries multiple "corrective" measures before giving into simple murder.  A noble should be led by his personality and his overriding need to show that he/she is a class above in deciding how he deals with problem commoners.

As far as commoners beating on commoners goes, I think that people should, in general, meet threat with roughly equal threat.  Name calling probably doesn't really call for murder.  Pick pocketing calls for a good beating, but probably not for chopping someone's head off.  An attempt at murder or a credible threat of murder probably calls for murder in response.  Unless you are playing a very bloody minded person, murder probably should probably not be your first response to any offense.  That said, I think commoners should feel pretty free to respond how they like to each others provocations.  People should just keep in mind that murder isn't a casual thing for most people.  Your mercenary thug might very well respond to insult with murder, but realize that that makes him kind of a psychopath, not your average Allanaki.  Most people should probably gradually raise the stakes, meeting each escalation of conflict with escalation of their own.