Capital Punishment Overused

[Mr.B]

I'm on par with Synthesis and 7DeadlyVenoms's comments. Zalanthas is a place where death tends to come early, and kids tend to grow up really fast. In my mind, the people of Zalanthas are also generally made of tougher stuff then the majority of we folks in IRL due to natural selection and survival of the fittest over the course of centuries. Life is cheap on Zalanthas, and there are alot of areas in the game where if you simply show your face, the only punishment is capital punishment. I've also seen the results of -not- doling out capital punishment driving big, melodramatic plots and lots of RP on the parts of whole clans. So in essence, there's a good balance throughout the entire game, and ultimately it's in the hands of the players in power to make the judgement call on their fellow players. Just beware you you go messing with!

[X-D]

Also.

When you see templar positions open on the gdb. Pay attention IG, when you see the new templar. LEAVE THE CITY AND DON"T COME BACK FOR LIKE 3 RL WEEKS!

And no, I'm not kidding. As a nearly fifteen year observation of templar PCs. Every  single templar player flexes that templar power. All of them. Without exception. It is an OOC motivation that I understand but prefer to not be party too.

Then add in what Gimf said. The player has to settle in and learn that balance. Normaly this happens inside of 2-3 weeks. either they have settled in or the PC no longer exists.

[Gimfalisette]

And no, I'm not kidding. As a nearly fifteen year observation of templar PCs. Every  single templar player flexes that templar power. All of them. Without exception. It is an OOC motivation that I understand but prefer to not be party too.

In probably 90% of cases...and I'd throw in new nobles too...I heartily concur.

[Marauder Moe]

Is it an OOC thing?

I've never applied for a noble or templar position, and thus I don't know what the typical noble or templar background is like, but I suspect very often they're written as having an IC transition of some sort instead of just "*Poof!* I'm a PC now but I've been here all along virtually".

If that is the case, it makes sense for a character to wish to establish themselves and/or test what could be (based on background) newfound public power.

[Gimfalisette]

I played a noble and I think it's an OOC thing. Most of those stepping into noble/templar roles are (from what I've observed) first-time players of those roles, which are notably difficult to play. Players tend to vastly overestimate the actual power inherent in the role--as in, the actual power of the role is almost none (except that templars have the backing of crim code), but new nobles/templars think there IS some power. Power that is eventually gathered, if any, is 100% through roleplay...so "flexing your power"...is really not possible for n00bles, because there's none to flex.

[Marauder Moe]

Isn't exploring the limits of one's power/abilities/influence a very natural thing to do, though?

[Seeker]

... n00bles...

Ah... now that is delightful.  Thank you, Gimf.


Seeker

[Gimfalisette]

Isn't exploring the limits of one's power/abilities/influence a very natural thing to do, though?

It's natural, but that doesn't mean it's IC rather than being OOC. For most nobles, they've had -some- kind of noble status/position/job responsibility within their House for X number of years previously, so they should be keenly aware of where they stand and how much power they do or do not have; and yet still we see them overreaching. Templars are similar.

This is why we see n00bles bullying senior GMH family members over minor issues, demanding bows/nods from commoners who are merely in some kind of proximity to them, overreacting to minor crimes or treating the victim as the criminal, threatening to have people executed for perceived insults, etc. I'm sure this is the kind of behavior X-D meant, and it's totally OOC because it's based on the player's misunderstanding of relative power, not the n00ble's actual IC experience/training.

And you're welcome, Seeker, even though someone else coined the term

To note, I feel qualified to criticize about new nobles/templars because I WAS one once, and I too did not understand how little power I actually had, and how dumb I looked doing some of the stuff I did. And I've played really closely to a lot of nobles and templars in my fairly short time on ARM and have seen the trends.

[Marauder Moe]

Well I meant a natural IC thing.  Maybe not for all circumstances, but quite possibly said noble or templar may not have held a public position before and ICly may not know how much power they actually have.  Just because it matches an OOC lack of knowledge doesn't make it an OOC problem.   

[brytta.leofa]

A show of power with no actual power behind it makes the show-er look a little silly.

(Amos, what'd you do to make Lord Fancypants grumpy? Yeh, well, stay away from him, he's tetchy. We aren't doin' no more orders for him, anyway; too much trouble.)

[Marauder Moe]

What's wrong with looking silly?

[Gimfalisette]

To bring the answer back around to the original topic of discussion (ooh closure-ish), when new nobles/templars overestimate their own actual power and do things that "look silly," these things are usually also experienced as abusive and plain dumb by the playerbase, which causes players to want to avoid those nobles/templars as X-D does, by leaving the city altogether. The nastiness continues as the new noble/templar finds that their current rep of retardation leads to the following effects: No one wants to play with him/her, commoners generally avoid contact with them, they're unable to find employees, they may be unable to get or inspire productive work from pre-existing employees, there may be an inability to make profitable/constructive deals with the game's other apped leaders. This leads to major frustration and the n00ble becomes tempted to store.

THAT is what is wrong with looking silly. Starting off on the wrong foot rarely leads to good things and is pretty hard to overcome, actually.

If, for example, a new templar in Allanak stepped into the role and caught a pickpocket for a minor crime and decided a public execution was the right thing to do, despite the thief's pleas to get off and offers to bribe...that would be a pretty typical thing for a n00ble to do and well within the LEGAL RIGHTS of the character, but it's not doing them or the game any good.

[LoD]

If, for example, a new templar in Allanak stepped into the role and caught a pickpocket for a minor crime and decided a public execution was the right thing to do, despite the thief's pleas to get off and offers to bribe...that would be a pretty typical thing for a n00ble to do and well within the LEGAL RIGHTS of the character, but it's not doing them or the game any good.

This sentiment more than any other best describes what I perceive as the OP's issue with capital punishment.  I don't think anyone is asking for a safer, happier, nicer Zalanthas.  What the OP is observing is the trend of certain authority figures to choose execution over other viable options, especially when the situation doesn't necessarily warrant such an extreme option.

There may be times when "behind the scenes" events warrant the execution, but I don't think we're necessarily discussing that situation.  We're discussing the situations where authority figures (i.e. templars, nobles) find themselves in a situation where they hold a character's life in their hands.  And generally that position has not come as a result of the templar being personally opposed to that person, but most often because that's a templar's job. 

A thief caught stealing by the templarate should blame themselves ten times more than the templar who found them, because it's understood that templars are there to catch criminals.  That relationship should be a given, and thieves/assassins/spies should be no more opposed to a templar that has punished them than to a templar that hasn't yet had the opportunity.  As if there were a templar out there that would witness you fail a steal attempt in public and not do something about it.

What I perceive the OP as saying is this -- If you are the player of an authority figure, such as a templar or noble, that has the ability to impose punishments on PC's, whether it's part of your job or not, take care and grant the situation the proper consideration with the understanding that allowing someone to live may create a far better story than their execution could ever achieve.

No one is asking you to shy away from violence, ruthlessness, sadism, or harsh play.  Just make sure that you're killing someone because it makes the story better, and not simply because you "can".

-LoD

[X-D]

Gimf and LoD have it exactly right. Makes me happy there are people more articulate in print then me.

I would also like to add that We, as players have no past to work on with said noobles, no matter what kind of backround they have written. The fact is they still have simply POOFED into the world.

If I or my PC has to interact with a certain very old jihaen or a certain red robe, I have a good idea what the IC history is, I have a good idea how my PC should act, and how they will act.

You do not have this with Noobles. The only history you have to work on is from OTHER past noobles (man I love that word) and history teaches that noobles tend to flex in a manner that is often a detriment to your pc and often the game. And you know the old saying about doom and history.

I could post literally hundreds of times where this is the case. Where a nooble has started and within days taken out some very old, active plot forming PCs only to themselves be gone/dead/stored days later.

As to the other part of the conversation. as Gimf and others have stated, Too many times the person in power is actually forced, often by the  "victem" to resort to execution. But at the same time, it is often the fault of the person in power for making such a big deal of what is normaly something minor to begin with.

When you come down to it. Simply the idea that a commoner CAN insult a noble/templar is silly. They do not rank high enough socialy to matter that much. Of course they hate you, of course they envy you, they are worms, you are gods. You cannot be insulted by a worm. But you still need them to keep the dirt of your beloved garden healthy.

When a templar or noble shows anger etc from some slight from a commoner they only bring themselves back down to commoner/human level in the eyes of the masses.  Ignore it then have your aide hire some thugs to break his knees later.

[Gimfalisette]

To be very plainly honest: Even though I have been privileged to work alongside some extremely well-played nobles and templars and merchants, for all the above reasons the feature of 2.ARM that I am most happily anticipating is the dismantling of the apped leadership system. I realize there will be apped leaders here and there as necessary, and there will be some NPC leadership, but for the most part leadership will be a start-at-the-ground-floor kind of thing. And I think that will be really, really good for the game.

[a strange shadow]

Yeah. There is nothing like earning leadership, as opposed to having it handed to you.

[Rhyden]

To be very plainly honest: Even though I have been privileged to work alongside some extremely well-played nobles and templars and merchants, for all the above reasons the feature of 2.ARM that I am most happily anticipating is the dismantling of the apped leadership system. I realize there will be apped leaders here and there as necessary, and there will be some NPC leadership, but for the most part leadership will be a start-at-the-ground-floor kind of thing. And I think that will be really, really good for the game.

I totally agree. I can't wait for these type of leadership roles.

But most of the highest leadership positions in the current Zalanthas -are- handed to you.

[Sholdyn]

Thanks LoD, you hit the nail on the head.

[jstorrie]

Leadership roles in Arm are handed to you, though, because Zalanthas (or at least Allanak and Tuluk) are not meant to have that much social mobility.

A neat compromise would have been to have most templars start as a templar-in-training at some sub-rank and working for a more experienced mentor–or similarly, to require most nobles to start at a young enough age and low enough standing that their behaviour wasn't quite so jarring. But it's a little late for that. I am definitely in X-D's camp as far as avoiding new authority figures like the plague goes, at any rate; the powerful ones are ironically the ones who power-trip the least. It's a sort of self-filtering system, in the end: authority figures who suddenly show up and lord over PCs who should, realistically, be beneath their care and notice just quickly earn themselves reputations for being stupid assholes. They then get avoided until they retire out of boredom.

On the positive side: each city right now has an experienced, high-ranking templar PC who exudes authority without having to mutilate ignorant newbies. They are fine examples.

[Southie]

If you are the player of an authority figure, such as a templar or noble, that has the ability to impose punishments on PC's, whether it's part of your job or not, take care and grant the situation the proper consideration with the understanding that allowing someone to live may create a far better story than their execution could ever achieve.

No one is asking you to shy away from violence, ruthlessness, sadism, or harsh play.  Just make sure that you're killing someone because it makes the story better, and not simply because you "can".

Rather than writing out a separate post, I'll just quote LoD here and agree with him and everyone who has expressed similar sentiments.

The sentiment also applies to more than just "noobles" (haaaa), but to other authority figures as well. Desert elves raiding or defending territory, roving rogue mages of d00m, crime lords, and anybody else with the power to PK hapless PCs with the misfortune of wandering into or living in their domain. With templars and nobles it's just far more obvious due to the fact that the roles are so highly visible.

[mansa]

I wish there was a "suggested reading" helpfile that helps people in power positions deal with others, with specific exampls as to what they can and should do.

I'd like to see it, back when I was running a leader in the Guild, or when I was a leader in Kadius...

[Akaramu]

To bring the answer back around to the original topic of discussion (ooh closure-ish), when new nobles/templars overestimate their own actual power and do things that "look silly," these things are usually also experienced as abusive and plain dumb by the playerbase, which causes players to want to avoid those nobles/templars as X-D does, by leaving the city altogether. The nastiness continues as the new noble/templar finds that their current rep of retardation leads to the following effects: No one wants to play with him/her, commoners generally avoid contact with them, they're unable to find employees, they may be unable to get or inspire productive work from pre-existing employees, there may be an inability to make profitable/constructive deals with the game's other apped leaders. This leads to major frustration and the n00ble becomes tempted to store.

Quoted for awesomeness.

I dare claim this is also why the trader's inn is on average more empty than it should be. Bored n00bles sitting there waiting for someone to make a minor mistake.

[Akaramu]

Duh double post. Didn't notice until now. 

[psionic fungus]

I agree with Gimf and LoD...

I really can't understand people who say that if you don't kill someone you're setting yourself up for failure.  As someone else pointed out, having enemies drives plots and creates conflict... Which is fun.  Furthermore, you can do things (with staff assistance, of course) to pretty much any character to reduce their threat level.  There is always going to be some extreme that needs to be eliminated, but if you take (chop off) the dominant hand of the average city-elf pickpocket he's probably going to learn a very serious lesson...

[Tisiphone]

I will say this once and only once and only here.

If your powerbase is so insecure that you feel for a petty crime you must execute to avoid revenge, you shouldn't be executing anyone. Templars are no exceptions.