OOC Information (No this is a different conversation, really)

[Barzalene]

I disagree that things that alter playability should all require consent. (Sorry if I've misread- on phone- at work.) If shitty thing happen that's awesome. It never feels awesome in that first moment though. Sometimes choice isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Rape is an exception. I've had two PCs raped over the time I've played. The first was before the rule that you had to consent. The second I simply asked to fade. I didn't want to be rude. Or a wimp. Or take an easy out. Both times were faded. Both times left me feeling a little depressed and icky. Both times it invaded my sleep even though both times were faded. I think rape is too intense not to require consent. I don't even care if the majority of people agree. If that policy spares people real life stress or trauma it's doing it's job.  But murder? Torture? Abuse? Kidnapping?  That's the game world. You give consent by logging in.

[musashi]

Does anyone here actually think that murder requires consent in Armageddon? 

[Marauder Moe]

Kidnapping could hypothetically fall under the new slavery rules, at least if it's more than 1-2 RL days.

Also, consider the duration of coded jailing.  If long-term (ish) kidnapping was really 100% cool with the immortals, jail times would be WAY longer, or at least the procedure would be to keep them there indefinitely until a PC (templar) came to deal with them.

[musashi]

Kidnapping could hypothetically fall under the new slavery rules, at least if it's more than 1-2 RL days.

Also, consider the duration of coded jailing.  If long-term (ish) kidnapping was really 100% cool with the immortals, jail times would be WAY longer, or at least the procedure would be to keep them there indefinitely until a PC (templar) came to deal with them.

Hence why I was thinking getting consent beforehand would be nice to make sure the person is cool with being kidnapped.

[hyzhenhok]

Kidnapping could hypothetically fall under the new slavery rules, at least if it's more than 1-2 RL days.

Also, consider the duration of coded jailing.  If long-term (ish) kidnapping was really 100% cool with the immortals, jail times would be WAY longer, or at least the procedure would be to keep them there indefinitely until a PC (templar) came to deal with them.

Hence why I was thinking getting consent beforehand would be nice to make sure the person is cool with being kidnapped.

But if they're OOCly cool with being kidnapped, but their character is ICly not interested in letting that happen...you can't get around the fact that you're warning them ahead of time.

Compromise solution is to go through with your plan, catch them and put them in the box, and then OOC: D you consent being jailed confined indefinitely (not permanently), or shall I kill you now?

Rape is the only kind of plot that should absolutely not happen if the other player does not consent, IMO.

[musashi]

Well just because you ask for consent via staff doesn't mean you're going to kidnap them that same day. The actual strike might happen weeks, maybe months later. Plenty of time for them to slip up and let their guard down I think. But just my opinion.

[hyzhenhok]

Well just because you ask for consent via staff doesn't mean you're going to kidnap them that same day. The actual strike might happen weeks, maybe months later. Plenty of time for them to slip up and let their guard down I think. But just my opinion.

I wish I could trust the playerbase that much. :X

[musashi]

Who's talking about trusting them? I'm saying their attention span is short 

[Old Kank]

I wish I could trust the playerbase that much. :X

I think this fact prevents a lot of potentially interesting stuff from happening.  Players don't trust other players, so we put up walls in order to protect our characters and inadvertently kill fun conflict before it ever happens.

I'd like to see a system in place to promote trust between players, but I don't know how it could be done without adding some sort of OOC-knowledge.

What if we created some sort of player archetypes, or codes of conduct with rules like, "I don't invite other characters into my character's apartment with the intent of killing them," "My thieves won't take everything your character owns, just their fair share," or "I play out potentially fatal scenes rather than fleeing at the first sign of trouble," and then had some way to reference it in game, so you could develop some reasonable expectations from the players around you?

[MeTekillot]

Because SoI is rather annoying, Old Kank, and I have a feeling most of the playerbase doesn't feel like adopting some of their policies.

[Old Kank]

Because SoI is rather annoying, Old Kank, and I have a feeling most of the playerbase doesn't feel like adopting some of their policies.

I've never played SoI.  Is that something they do and does it work?

[MeTekillot]

They have codes of conduct. You can't 'run' in the wilderness. You can't attack someone in the wilderness without throwing off 4-5 emotes. Various other stupid things like that.

[boog]

Aren't most players here cool with getting their asses handed to them? Seriously. If I ever had a PC that was kidnapped, held for ransom, locked up with some scrappy duds and only a piece of bread a day, I think it'd be pretty neat.

SoI, you've got to understand, has certain standards it must meet due to Tolkien Enterprises. Arm doesn't have any copyright infringement BS, I'm fairly sure, (right?) and so I think this game makes it so much more easy to play a -real- gritty character, with real devious intent.

And now that I've strayed to the topic at hand by straying with the strayers and trying to cull themmmm.  

[Potaje]

I can see the view of a request to staff, but I can also see the lack of feasibility in such. Thus this makes each instance a case by case issue.

1. First point, say your trying to run a long kidnapping plot, then it would make sense to let staff know. But not so much to inquire with the player if they care for this, but to establish what might need to be in place staff side so they know what the intention is.

Now Kidnapping for ransom is very different for the intent to enslave. Simple for the fact you do not intent to keep the person bond for a life time.

I believe that it is the responsibility of the kidnapper (player) To insure all things are in order as far as needing to have the third party for whom will pay the ransom also available. This can be done via the way and does not need to be done oocly.

To continue, Kidnapping does not need to be ooc either, simple state your intention to the pc in the moment, or if you gain their trust, trap them some where alone with you. Sure they may fight and try to get away. That is their right, and in Rl a person with an opportunity to get away would.
If you do not wish to kill them yet need to use force, then I suggest you take into account your choice of weapons and or mercy status.
You may have to drag their limp body off and revive them after they are (emoted to) tied up.

2. second point, suppose you are a raider, not a murderer, just a raider and you happen upon a well to do that has ties to a house, merchant or noble. Say for instance in that moment you see an opportunity to gain more sid by ransoming them.

So here you do not have an opportunity to first send in a request, nor do I see a need to say Of ooc: I'm going to kidnap you.
I do believe this falls into the Ic "I'm going to hold you till you house can pay for your return." If they run then chase them down, or simply knock them the 'f' out before hand, ties them up, revive them and tell your intentions. All available to be done Icly.


3. Third point, Consider your target audience, who are your ransoming the person back to. If an agent of a merchant House, then perhaps you would get the name of someone above them from the person. In this you will need to arrange with staff for that NPC, VNPC to be available. Thus, put in a request before hand and or do a wish up (depending on the circumstance for which makes this an and or situation.)


All of this keeps the elements of spontanaity to the scene and game.

[boog]

They have codes of conduct. You can't 'run' in the wilderness. You can't attack someone in the wilderness without throwing off 4-5 emotes. Various other stupid things like that.

And yeah. Mostly out of courtesy and because people would twink from hiding spots and shoot people to PK in the face. The orc players with their ridiculous caps on shit (they had 100% higher caps due to their strength caps), would just murder anything that came past them in the wilderness, without any RP.

I think that it's lame to not RP something out like death, kidnapping, torture, whatever,  but hey. I think the imms would address someone if they were being twinky as balls.

[Old Kank]

Aren't most players here cool with getting their asses handed to them? Seriously. If I ever had a PC that was kidnapped, held for ransom, locked up with some scrappy duds and only a piece of bread a day, I think it'd be pretty neat.

I think players like the IDEA of being cool with getting their character's asses handed to them, but philosophy and practice start diverging when there's 40 days of playing time invested in a character.  I don't blame them, either - I don't want to see the time I invested in my murderous assassin thrown away because some newplar wants to make a name for himself.

They have codes of conduct. You can't 'run' in the wilderness. You can't attack someone in the wilderness without throwing off 4-5 emotes. Various other stupid things like that.

Are those hard and fast rules that are regulated by the staff?  If so, I agree, that sounds annoying.

I wasn't thinking of a code of conduct as a set of rigid requirements.  I was thinking of it as something that says, from one player to another, "I'm not out to fuck you over."

[Thunkkin]

"I'm not out to fuck you over."

Murder. Betrayl. Somethingsomethingsomething.

Let's face it. A large appeal of this game is the chance to fuck other people over.

I see what you mean, though. I think you mean, "I'm not out to fuck you over in a twinkish, unrealistic, or unsatisfying way." But then many of us would have to add, "Unless it serves my character's true ends to have your throat slit without any warning to you or any chance for you to ask me about my true plan or to say dying words to your loved ones."

So ... yeah ...

[Delirium]

"I'm not out to fuck you over for the sake of 'winning', I'm out to fuck you over if it advances the story in a meaningful way."

For the record, I've never instarun from tense PC-PC situations without at least emoting first, and I've never been screwed over for it. I may be optimistic, but I like to think that if you show the other player you're willing to play ball, they will roll with it.

[Saellyn]

I walk into bad situations knowing it's bad because I want that experience. And sometimes it leaves me feeling -really- empty, and other times it leaves me feeling fulfilled.

So, dying to NPC #2345535 is bad, but dying to amazing pc (whatever) is substantially more amazing. And tends to be amazing to begin with.

[Old Kank]

I think you mean, "I'm not out to fuck you over in a twinkish, unrealistic, or unsatisfying way." But then many of us would have to add, "Unless it serves my character's true ends to have your throat slit without any warning to you or any chance for you to ask me about my true plan or to say dying words to your loved ones."

Yeah.  I think 'unsatisfying' is the key word.  I don't mind putting my characters in harm's way, but I hope to get something satisfying out of it.  

When it comes to death, my wish would be that characters be dealt with according to their actual/potential contribution to the game's story rather than with a focus on 'winning,' as Delirium said.  Treat your character's enemies with the respect that their players deserve because, for better or worse, they make the game more interesting for you.

[MeTekillot]

Also remember that the way you would do something isn't necessarily the way your character would do something. You may very well be Dr. Doom, but your character can be a bumbling idiot when it comes to actually trying to deal with their enemies.

[Erisine]

I would REALLY hope that the "appeal" of this game is NOT to "fuck people over."  There is a HUGE difference between getting off because your character just executed a well-laid trap with perfection, and getting off because you think that well-made negatively effected the player behind the keyboard.  If you want to play that way, I hope that you get bored and move onto some other crappy MUD.

I think that players SHOULD have a code of ethics.  You don't have to promise you won't run in the wilderness, or not kill someone in a mugging-gone-bad.  But you SHOULD be able to say to yourself, "You know what, I'm not going to just make it a habit to type, 'e', 'e', 'n', 'k man'."  I had expected that this is partially what the karma system was for.  If the staff agree with this notion, then I don't see any reason why we can't continue to send notes into the staff when we observe other players going out of their way to show good ethics, or when we see players in certain positions (like templars) showing bad ethics.

If I go through the efforts to use a request tool to send a message to someone asking for consent, I EXPECT them not to use that OOC knowledge.  The rules of the game EXPECTS them not to use that knowledge.  If they do, then I hope the staff would take notice, because that is bad ethics and it negatively impacts the game overall.  There is no reason for me to go out of my way to be a DICK to someone just because I want to imagine myself getting one over on somebody.

As for murder -- that's separate.  If I INTEND to kill someone, then I will.  It doesn't handicap the player in question.  Hopefully I do in a manner that shows good ethics and that I don't simply make it a borefest for THEM -- hopefully they get to interact instead of being all, "La la la, I'm gonna log into Arm today!"  *MANTISHEAD*  "Wtf?"   <---- This is fine for NPCs.  This is not fine for you or me.

[Barzalene]

Two things, first the idea that we don't risk long lived pcs because they are long lived obviates the need for permadeath. I'm not saying it's wrong- just that I don't understand.

Second, if we all decide not to take risks to further plots, plots will become small safe and static.

[Bacon]

It is all good if you want to make a character from time to time that "wants to set the world on fire just to watch it burn". The problem I have is that it seems all to often that players decide out of character: "Looks like someone is trying to build something in game. I'm going to contrive a reason for my character to disrupt/destroy it."
If things happen in character to actually create a reason for your character to even want to pay attention to what's going on with the other or to take action against them or what they are doing, that's fine too. I think that it is sleezy  as a player to come up with reasons to tear down other's shit, just to be an asshole to the player.

[Delirium]

My honest opinion is that those types of players are bored and lazy. Bored, so they seek something to get involved with, lazy, because they decide that fucking up someone else's hard work is easier than trying to create something to conflict with or surpass the other persons' achievements. Not to say that it isn't okay to try and obstruct someone else's goals.

I think most people know the difference between petty griefing and legitimate conflict, but it's those few who don't that tend to tear down the entire stack of dominoes and make it insanely frustrating for those putting real effort in. Some players have become rather hesitant to contribute an overabundance of time or effort for just that reason. It becomes a chore to lead, create, and inspire, when others try to destroy you merely for putting yourself out there, being good at what you do, and involving others.

I think that's a large reason why you see so many calls for leadership roles.