KILLKILLKILL!!!

[Lizzie]

People are saying PK may indeed make sense to the majority of the population the majority of the time.   THAT is not true.  If you believe it is, please share why.

I'm saying, that people are NOT saying that. I'm saying, that if you are hearing that, then you might be hearing it from some OOC channels. Because I'm not seeing anyone say that here on the GDB.

I know it doesn't make sense to me, the majority of the time. But I can't speak on behalf of the majority, because I don't know the majority, nor do I speak -to- the majority. I know what I read here. And what I read here, is that -no one- is suggesting that PK is the only logical option in any situation.

[Twilight]

I must be an exception.  I've never had an experience end in PK because I extended trust to the other player.  And I have been in lots of different situations that could have resulted in PK.  I've always thought it was a reflection of character attitude, posturing, and injecting some uncertainty as to whether the other person could suceed into the situation.

I have been PK'd, of course.  But it was always the relentless kind with no quarter asked or given, with only one exception.  My PC a niliazi, the other a elkrosian.  My PC a vivaduan, the other a nilazi.  My PC escaping from the clutches of a criminal gang, hunted down and killed.  My PC a well known Krathi, killed by Blackmoon.  My PC a halfling.  My PC a gith.  Etc.

Maybe I am just lucky, but it has always worked for me, over the last 15+ years or so.

[Cutthroat]

I think its just as bad to leave someone alive because you think it will be fun to have an arch nemesis oocly as it is to kill someone because oocly you like to kill other players. If your character would kill them, then do it, if not then don't.

-Exactly- how I feel about it. It is every bit as wrong to -not- kill someone for OOC reasons as it is to kill someone for OOC reasons.

That's where I stand on the whole thing. It's cool when alternatives to murder are found, but only when it makes sense.

Right. Murder has its place, but so do the other options that are out there.

Get rid of thoughts that murder is the definite solution to problems, and start to think that if you kill every problem you have, the game's going to get pretty stale. Then again, most people don't kill everything.

Basically, aggressors - as a courtesy to other players, do what makes sense for your character.
Victims - as a courtesy to other players, accept the fact that your character has been victimized, and it was likely for a good reason. Then play along with it.

[jhunter]

Basically, aggressors - as a courtesy to other players, do what makes sense for your character.
Victims - as a courtesy to other players, accept the fact that your character has been victimized, and it was likely for a good reason. Then play along with it.

Well said.

[My 2 sids]

-'Sids, it sounds to me like there is never a logical reason for you to kill, even on Zalanthas. But, I'll bet you don't hesitate to or look down on someone for killing a NPC that is threatening their lives or livelyhood. That's the difference, you're going out of character to prevent killing the character because there is a player behind it. That isn't roleplaying. Your example calling it flawed has nothing to do with the situation. Plenty of times I have stood near a npc while wishing up for animation rather than ignoring them because they are npc and tracking down a player character.

I believe I've said this before, but killing other pcs, while it might end one plot, often sprouts new plots. A few of the longest running plots I've ever been involved in started because of a pc being killed.

Oh, and just because we (with our civilized, modern day mentalities) don't believe that killing was the correct response, it does not mean that our pcs wouldn't believe it to be exactly the correct response.

Maybe what I'm trying to say is that murder should be done with the understanding that it goes against normal logic.  In game, we have many defined groups w/ a lot of tension between them.  BUT, it would be considered stupid for one group to blatantly attack another -- all groups realize as terrible as the system is, it's still a system which works.   The templarate need the nobles; the nobility need the templarate.  The mundane need magickers and vise versa.  If Amos wants to spit on every elf he sees, fine.  But, if Amos starts to kill every elf he sees -- that calls into question the entire system of the society THAT WILL BE PUT DOWN BY CONCERNED CITIZENS.  

YES, it's tough, cruel, harsh world in which our PCs live.  BUT, halfings do the logical thing of consuming whatever meat is available -- yet these other races still place a taboo on such behavior.  Some things, even in Zalanthas, are considered "savage".   And with real, logical, IC reasons.


Secondly, There is no "me" in multi-player.  Sorry, but seems to me a large part of "friendly competition" does include making sure _everyone_ has fun.

[Adieren]

I wouldn't have been so upset if they had given me REAL role-play to make it gratifying rather than just a disappointment. And as some of those situations were on my second and fourth character... it rather soured my opinion of the game's players.

What do you mean by real roleplay?

I mean that I was in a situation where they could have done a lot of mean, evil stuff to be torturous, and apparently that was part of their characters, and NOTHING. They didn't emote their fighting, they didn't emote anything. There was the conversation and BOOM. Here's us with our poisoned weapons to kill you because you tried to help.

[mansa]

Implement post-combat rp by creating a pre-death incapacitated mode. There will be less death.

Implement the ability to cripple/maim, but leave these players alive. Ie, cut off hand --agil. Smash knees --endurance. Cut out an eye --room look distance.

There is less creativity in revenge because there are less avenues for punishment. I remember I played a Mul in the rinth that wroked at a bar there. Elves would come in this bar and talk smack. So I would beat them and then OOCly not wanting to kill them I would drop them in a well and leave them to fate. Then the same elves would come back and talk smack again.

What's a boy to do? Oocly - I didn't want to kill them. But some of them, I didn't have any other avenues. Sometimes you can take people's money and equipment, but what do you do to someone who doesn't care about that?

Of course, I'm speaking from a position of power. Another example - you're a templar and you encounter a n00b. ICly you need to punish the n00b - but the n00b is well a n00b and is being ridiculous. You don't want to kill him - but eventually you have to, because you don't have any other avenues. So you make the right decision and kill him publicly and hope the scene is enough to bring him/her back to the game and that you've enriched other's time by making it an event.

But at the end of the day, if you could cut off his hand? Brand him? Banish him? There's 100 other punishment options - but none of them are enforced. Death is enforced and it's final and speaks heavily to your point.

Implement a way to codedly lower the max skill percentages forever.
Implement a way to codedly lower your skills for *a long time in real life
Implement a way to maim characters and remove limbs, yet keep them alive.
Implement a way to forcibly add scars to characters.

ooo.  jmordetsky, we're on the same page here.

in my opinion, when there are more tools to use to interact with people, there will be less outright killings.

[My 2 sids]

Basically, aggressors - as a courtesy to other players, do what makes sense for your character.
Victims - as a courtesy to other players, accept the fact that your character has been victimized, and it was likely for a good reason. Then play along with it.

It seems to me there are two directions for Arm.

One, we can keep playing this "catch the twink" race where we try to make more and more rules and regulations to ensure this small minority of players don't take advantage.

Two, we can play to the majority of players who are here (and who stay here) because they truly want to role-play.


Yeah, it sucks to loose a PC to some twink who doesn't role-play realistically.   But, isn't it a lot worse to spend major amounts of time and effort trying to play the game around this minority of players (of which many will get bored with the non-hack and slash lifestyle and leave anyway)  than to play the game around the majority of players who are here for the long run and try to play their PCs in a well-rounded, realistic manor?  

What are New Players learning?  What is going to become the norm and expectations for players?

[Cutthroat]

I agree that there could be more coded avenues for physical punishment than there already are and that some people would find it useful; the only thing I'm wary of in those cases are the people who will take their non-lethal punishment then just attack a unit of soldiers, or store, since they can be restrictive (specifically to code dependent characters rather than socialites).

[KankWhisperer]

Maybe what I'm trying to say is that murder should be done with the understanding that it goes against normal logic.  In game, we have many defined groups w/ a lot of tension between them.  BUT, it would be considered stupid for one group to blatantly attack another -- all groups realize as terrible as the system is, it's still a system which works.   The templarate need the nobles; the nobility need the templarate.  The mundane need magickers and vise versa.  If Amos wants to spit on every elf he sees, fine.  But, if Amos starts to kill every elf he sees -- that calls into question the entire system of the society THAT WILL BE PUT DOWN BY CONCERNED CITIZENS.  

YES, it's tough, cruel, harsh world in which our PCs live.  BUT, halfings do the logical thing of consuming whatever meat is available -- yet these other races still place a taboo on such behavior.  Some things, even in Zalanthas, are considered "savage".   And with real, logical, IC reasons.


Secondly, There is no "me" in multi-player.  Sorry, but seems to me a large part of "friendly competition" does include making sure _everyone_ has fun.

There is no normal logic. People will do what they can do. A commoner is unlikely to ruin a templars reputation but they could throw a poison knife in his eye. It's much more within their realm of resources and experience then trying to come up with some elaborate plot. I think most people in reality that are maimed is because the other person FAILED to kill them, not because the other person was sadistic. They escaped somehow or they were thought to be  dead. Who, besides people in comics, wants to leave their enemies alive to come back later?

I think that murder is not the logical solution for you if you are in power in a situation. Why change things? Everything seems to be slanted in your favor. When you have no power and are used and abused, it makes much more sense to kill. That's why when we have revolutions PEOPLE HAVE TO DIE. This so called normal logic only applies as long as everyone agrees that they can live with the current situation. As soon as someone or some group decides that they can't, the blood must flow.

[jhunter]

-'Sids, it sounds to me like there is never a logical reason for you to kill, even on Zalanthas. But, I'll bet you don't hesitate to or look down on someone for killing a NPC that is threatening their lives or livelyhood. That's the difference, you're going out of character to prevent killing the character because there is a player behind it. That isn't roleplaying. Your example calling it flawed has nothing to do with the situation. Plenty of times I have stood near a npc while wishing up for animation rather than ignoring them because they are npc and tracking down a player character.

I believe I've said this before, but killing other pcs, while it might end one plot, often sprouts new plots. A few of the longest running plots I've ever been involved in started because of a pc being killed.

Oh, and just because we (with our civilized, modern day mentalities) don't believe that killing was the correct response, it does not mean that our pcs wouldn't believe it to be exactly the correct response.

Maybe what I'm trying to say is that murder should be done with the understanding that it goes against normal logic.  In game, we have many defined groups w/ a lot of tension between them.  BUT, it would be considered stupid for one group to blatantly attack another -- all groups realize as terrible as the system is, it's still a system which works.   The templarate need the nobles; the nobility need the templarate.  The mundane need magickers and vise versa.  If Amos wants to spit on every elf he sees, fine.  But, if Amos starts to kill every elf he sees -- that calls into question the entire system of the society THAT WILL BE PUT DOWN BY CONCERNED CITIZENS.  

YES, it's tough, cruel, harsh world in which our PCs live.  BUT, halfings do the logical thing of consuming whatever meat is available -- yet these other races still place a taboo on such behavior.  Some things, even in Zalanthas, are considered "savage".   And with real, logical, IC reasons.


Secondly, There is no "me" in multi-player.  Sorry, but seems to me a large part of "friendly competition" does include making sure _everyone_ has fun.

You're applying real world, modern-day logic and morals to a world that is much more primitive and lacks alot of those morals that you're trying to apply to it. I guess what I'm saying is that maybe you should look back on our RL history a bit and see how things were when things were more primitive and people thought differently than they do now.

In no way am I saying that one should kill all the time. What I'm saying is that players whose characters would do that shouldn't be looked down on OOClly for doing it, if it's what their character would do. As a templar, the first time I did it, I maimed other pcs, I only ever killed one (outside of a war situation) and it wasn't my doing, they foolishly attacked me and basically suicided their character. Other times, I've had non-sponsored pcs that killed anyone that posed a threat or crossed them. It was insurance that, those who considered crossing him inthe future, thought long and hard about what this could mean to them should they do so. This practice is still done in modern-day society.

[Ghost]

My most frustrating experiences have all come at the hands of people in positions of extreme power or influence.  While I do feel murder is an integral part to the game, we could probably benefit by seeing less murder (and more creative solutions) practiced by those characters with the power and position to more easily pursue an alternative -- especially special application leaders such as templars, nobles, GMH family leaders, etc...

I can see your point Betaal.  But I also see Lizzie's point and agree with her too.

I can understand how upsetting it is to lose a PC, often why it will lead the people to do stupid things beyond measure.  Now, that being said, let me state it this way:  Everytime I decided not to kill someone but give them a second chance (after overpowering them to the point of death) I lived to regret it.  I will give you two stories about it, and it involves everyone's favorite villain:  Quick.

*     *        *       *           *

1- The end of the world plot:  After the end of the world had been announced, every clan got some sort of quest involving repeated RPTs to build up to a final HRPT kind.  It was also announced that PCs would have a high chance of affecting the end of the world (so every clan were encouraged to be part of history by completing their quests first.  In those times my clan were given a vague set of RPTs as well and we were told what would happen if we failed and apparently the failure for us, from what we were told, would be devastating (in terms of losing life over it)..  Coincidentally, there were a group of renegade magickers who had their own RPTs, and from the information we collected it seemed so much like their quest was building up for our failure.  We spied on them for several days and we found out they nearly finished it whereas we were only at the beginning.    We panicked, and at the time I had nearly half the clan members with me (and the magicker group was nearly full in numbers as well, maybe missing two people).  We decided we will attack them immediately and we did.  A surprise attack and we kidnapped 4 magickers in one attack, two of them died during transporting them to our quarters.  We tortured them to get all the information we can, and we found only part of the information, apparently their leader was not there at the moment.  The tortured members were killed later so that they would not be able to finish the quest.  We attacked once more and two more were kidnapped, they both died during transportation (I think).  I found out there was one invisible magicker during our second attack who did not move or make a sound, so we missed her.

Now after this point, only she was alive of the whole group and I told Quick not to go after her.  I Wayed to that invisible magicker and I told her our reasoning as to why we went after her group.  I told her that we will leave her alone, if she promises she will not try to complete the quest, I even told her I would help her in other ways.  She sounded happy enough at the time and she said she will not do the quest.  Now after a few weeks, my PC  became even friendly to this magicker, speaking to her once in a while.  Later though, some other magicker friends of hers (I guess they were gone for a while for RL reasons) returned to the game and learned what happened to the renegade mages.  Just two days after their return, these folks came to our dwelling place and summoned many nasty critters around our quit safe place.  It took 45 minutes for me and Quick to clean all of the summoned creatures before anybody else could log in and die to the aggro NPCs.  
After this dangerous encounter, I spoke to the magicker girl's friend directly and learned that it was -he and his friend(s)' doing to give us a payback, and "to put something on table" to come to a compromise.  We killed both the girl and her magicker friend, and there was a third one who was not around at the time.  Just a day after we found him talking in a bar that he will destroy every single one of us for killing his friends and we killed him too.

2- But I was just fucking around: Another time, a certain magicker came into my clan's place and in the middle of all the NPCs, magicked me away.  I did not even know the magicker (I did not even see her before).  I was left in the middle of the desert that I did not even know where and immediately afterwards, I retaliated.  She ran away and about 5-10 minutes later, she quit.  I found out it was a gemmer, and a templar and a clan NPC talked over this.  Templar requested that the magicker left alive, he said we could punish her for a fee or service or any other sort but he specifically requested she should be left alive.  I accepted it coming from a clan NPC, and told the magicker she will pay 2k sids (which she did immediately) and told her there wont be any harm coming to any of my clanmates ever again, she accepted, and I told her if there is some need for a gemmer help we would need her to give us a hand, she accepted it all happily (for the record, we never asked her to do any work ever).

After a few weeks from this, I had to go to Turkey for 15 days where I did not have regular access to internet.  I returned after 15 days to find out that the magicker that we spared to live, summoned a bunch of nasty critters and killed one of my best clanmates (my second in command).  Then went out and attempted to kill another important clanmate and -nearly- managed it (Quick rescued him).  After that a bunch of shitstorm happened involving an enraged Quick (after losing a very good clanmate and barely rescuing another clanmate to a stupid mage that was supposed to be dead a few weeks ago) to chase the magicker to everywhere in Allanak until the magicker quit.
The templar who saved her first time got very upset too and they started a gemmer based hunt for the magicker (most of the mages were hunting her down as well).  Now this magicker girl though, she started immediately scouting around our clan compound (looking for someone to kill I guess) after logging in and if she cant find anyone she was logging off.  Because gemmed PCs were reported to me repeatedly they saw her storming off and returning and quitting within just a few minutes, they could not even react to her.  Now once, she managed to find me around the clan compound, attacked me with all she got and nearly killed me in one round (I was at -8 hp mind you) to be rescued by Quick.  Quick apparently beat her back and she ran away.  In three minutes, I was healed through some supernatural ways to just get the magicker (since we finally found her logged in right?) she quits again (I guess as soon as the "too excited" timer ran off).


*           *           *          *

The above being said, there were always occasional fuck ups too.  There was this time, I told Quick again that we should perhaps find a different alternative to killing a few guys.  So we take them to sit down with us, and tell them we will leave them alone if they leave us alone, they agree, go out to tell their buddies to leave us alone as well, and you know what, one of their buddies say "fuck it" and says they will gather enough people to destroy us.
Another PC and their friends, we tell them we forgave that they tried to screw us, now here is their tribute to show good faith (a fee to be paid) they say they will collect it, and instead, a few days later one of them magickally transport themselves to our quarters and shoves a magickal spear through Quick's heart (or where his heart was supposed to be).
We let some PCs alive, they just ran to the closest templar and told so much bullshit story of how we are going to destroy the world.  One of them even pulled a "mental breakdown scene" so good, I did not think the guy was capable of doing so.  Was it fun in the end for us?  NO.  I mean, I was running out of IC reasons to actually find an alternative way to death everytime. Since leaving enemies alive was bringing so much trouble ICly, it was stealing all of my fun of the game.  Everytime I face an enemy I was facing "If I kill them, I will hear more people bitching on GDB about us, if I let them alive, I will hear more people coming after us and maybe even lose clanmates on it".  Everytime Quick asked me "why are not we killing them, they are the enemy?" I did not have any reasonable answer.  

Roughly a year ago, rinth was a pretty barren zone in terms of playerbase. Were there leaders there? There were, maxed characters who were of the kind who preferred to squash opposition, instead of playing with it. The result was that the zone remained barren, but the two or three players just sitting on what they got.

No Dar, unfortunately that is not always the case either.  A few years ago, I was a leader in rinth too.  Anytime we let someone alive, we started losing PCs because of these "I got overpowered, now I must take my revenge!" PCs were just coming there and killing folks as well.  Do you know when the rinth had the highest numbers?  When Quick showed me all those occasions of "letting someone alive means we will get fucked by these people" and convinced me we should kill enemies more often than sparing them.  There were roughly 40 regular people in Allanak, and we had 15 people in rinth.  That number fluctuated between 10-12-13 for a long time.  That was an all times high for years 2004-2005 to 2006-2007.  I did not play there in between 2005-2006 so I dont know how many people were there but I highly doubt anytime in rinth got that much.  So I get confused when people say "It takes only a few non-mundane PCs to scare everyone else from the rinth". Honestly, when rinth was scariest, it had the highest number of people there.

My point is:  MarshallDX formulated it well.  Too often, leaving people alive may be more fun than killing, but the trouble you get in return is much much greater than the fun you will probably get.

[Gimfalisette]

I agree that there could be more coded avenues for physical punishment than there already are and that some people would find it useful; the only thing I'm wary of in those cases are the people who will take their non-lethal punishment then just attack a unit of soldiers, or store, since they can be restrictive (specifically to code dependent characters rather than socialites).

Personally, I'd rather see more coded avenues of punishment that are both non-lethal and non-permanent. Stuff that would wear off over time, or could be removed. Like, getting codedly banned from a tavern or an area; being denied the ability to sell stuff to a shop or shops; annoying magickal curses; etc.

But, I think that there would need to be a larger playerbase and some attention given to the ability to hide one's identity while screwing with other people, too. Right now if you screw with someone, you're often gonna just get caught. And that's a deterrent to non-lethal screwing with. Easier to kill them and not get caught at all.

[UnderSeven]

I agree that there could be more coded avenues for physical punishment than there already are and that some people would find it useful; the only thing I'm wary of in those cases are the people who will take their non-lethal punishment then just attack a unit of soldiers, or store, since they can be restrictive (specifically to code dependent characters rather than socialites).

Personally, I'd rather see more coded avenues of punishment that are both non-lethal and non-permanent. Stuff that would wear off over time, or could be removed. Like, getting codedly banned from a tavern or an area; being denied the ability to sell stuff to a shop or shops; annoying magickal curses; etc.

But, I think that there would need to be a larger playerbase and some attention given to the ability to hide one's identity while screwing with other people, too. Right now if you screw with someone, you're often gonna just get caught. And that's a deterrent to non-lethal screwing with. Easier to kill them and not get caught at all.

Chastity belt.

[KankWhisperer]

Actually ghost that sounds kind of interesting. Seems like more of an argument for not killing people kinda.

[Ghost]

Well I dont know about you, but I have more fun when my clanmates are alive rather than dead.  I get less fun (ICly and OOCly) when somebody kills folks I live and work with because I showed mercy in their killer.

[My 2 sids]

You're applying real world, modern-day logic and morals to a world that is much more primitive and lacks alot of those morals that you're trying to apply to it. I guess what I'm saying is that maybe you should look back on our RL history a bit and see how things were when things were more primitive and people thought differently than they do now.

Read your own history, and some sociology and anthropology books too.

The idea of humans seeking a form of law dates back to Hammurabi!  The individual is NOT ALLOWED to do whatever the hell they want -- they have to conform.   Random, irrational  death is never supported by ANY culture EVER.   And yes, someone dieing because they sneezed on you -- is random and irrational.


I'd go so far as to say if death was so "normal" that Turki society would fall -- can't build fear of unknown difference in the hearts of folks who know for a fact death is around the corner.


What you're labeling as "modern" is really nothing more than a recipe for Anarchy.

[FantasyWriter]

I agree that there could be more coded avenues for physical punishment than there already are and that some people would find it useful; the only thing I'm wary of in those cases are the people who will take their non-lethal punishment then just attack a unit of soldiers, or store, since they can be restrictive (specifically to code dependent characters rather than socialites).

Personally, I'd rather see more coded avenues of punishment that are both non-lethal and non-permanent... being denied the ability to sell stuff to a shop or shops..

That is possible... there was this one time....
Myself and a peer were having trouble with a minion that was either spamcrafting or stealing from our clan... ICly, the only justification was stealing.

We tried reprimanding the PC...  he just got smart with us.... to the point of an animated NPC guard asking to be able to kill him.
We decided to spare and pseudo-codedly maim him (using a certain staff-added tattoo).  

He _STILL_ kept trying to hurt the clan.  I asked my superiors to black-list him from our shops.
I was told it was codedly possible but that an indie crafter wasn't worth the house's efforts.

I then proceeded to have some templarate pressure added... still no change.
Not sure what ever happened to that PC, but had I ran into them again, there would have been a dagger in his back.
Of course that was after more than one attempt at trying to get them to back off and learn their place.

[Fnord]

I agree with Ghost. Too often letting someone live simply means they get a chance to skill up and form more alliances in order to make a revenge attempt more successful. There's plenty of room for non-lethal conflict within the civilized parts of a city state, or within a clan with an authority structure. Outside of those venues, things get a lot more dangerous and with good reason.

[KankWhisperer]

For a staff to complain about PK...

Over 3/4 of the player deaths I have personally witnessed are when Staff A gets Group B and Group C into Location D and says "Kill".

[Gimfalisette]

Yeah, but those deaths are inevitably due to player stupidity. Staff isn't allowed to specifically plot the deaths of PCs, but they do put PCs into dangerous situations on purpose. Every time I've seen a PC die at an RPT, it's because the player was being dumb or inattentive.

[Qzzrbl]

Does nobody here know the power of near-death beatings?

Seriously, try them sometime.

[KankWhisperer]

Yeah, but those deaths are inevitably due to player stupidity. Staff isn't allowed to specifically plot the deaths of PCs, but they do put PCs into dangerous situations on purpose. Every time I've seen a PC die at an RPT, it's because the player was being dumb or inattentive.

Yeah but it seems the end game of most plots is epic battle. Scale that down to two people and that's just a PK.

[helix]

The problem with most people in these situations is that the defeated aren't simply content to stay defeated, and rarely come back and seek any kind of reconciliation or agreement (and keep to it). The motto, "If you can't beat them, join them!" seems fairly absent in dealing with rivals in Armageddon. While it's awesome to have an IC nemesis, there comes a point in time in the life of a powerful, long-lived character where your nemesi (plural?) are being counted on both hands and feet. Leaving potential rivals alive when there are multiple forces arrayed against you is not sensible, especially considering that the longer lived your character becomes, the more people will oppose you 'just because'.

[Rhyden]

I agree with Ghost. It's fun to make more plots by letting characters live sometimes, but there is a time when death is the only answer. I think this thread's purpose was to explain the finality of death. Once someone is killed, that's it; the action is irrevocable.

When you have a character that is in power, or a character that is capable of killing another, you the player need to keep this all in mind. Think for a moment before dealing out death so swiftly. Think about all the other ways you can deal with a character before killing them.

But if you've gone through the alternatives, and there is no solution other than death, Mr. McCartney said it best...

When You Were Young And Your Heart Was An Open Book
You Used To Say "Live And Let Live"
(You Know You Did, You Know You Did, You Know You Did)
But If This Ever Changing World In Which We're Livin'
Makes You Give In And Cry
Say "Live And Let Die"
"Live And Let Die"
"Live And Let Die"
"Live And Let Die"