Antagonize.... like a Boss.

[FantasyWriter]

Moving from random Arm thoughts since it turned out to be not so random....

Playing aantagonist can be quite hard. Especially if you want to build one up from scratch. Even moreso if you want support, doing it without magick makes it even MORE complicated and dangerous for your PCs life.
The gith are gone to players, the Red Fangs are gone to players, the Black Moon raiders are gone to players the Guild's crime is too organized. there are certain groups who go after certain other groups and there are some groups who defend their own little piece of the world with an Iron Fist. But....

Allanak and Tuluk haven't been in open hostilities in quite some time, the bad guy groups are all closed or wiped out(unless there is some behind the scenes stuff going on that I don't know about, of course). 

I would love to be able to come up with a good bad-guy splinter-cell-sized group as a one time deal and have staff sponsor four player-characters (since that is the limit on "family" roles) to start it (with very slight skill bumps so the first buddied-up magicker or lone ranger they come across doesn't sick half the player base on them). After those first four PCs and first set of tweaks, they are completely on their own OOCly and ICly unless they do something about it. Starting something like this from scratch (something I've tried to do with three or four PCs in the past), you could work your ass off for a year and still not have a dependable, living comrade (although, most likely you will have pissed off some breed or dirty 'gicker and they brought the world down on your head like they mattered).


Also, a one time role call for four or five gith or a hidden clutch of mantis in the middle of the wastelands who has somehow lost their food supply due to humanoid over hunting would kick total ass as well and add a much needed (IMO) touch of variety to the game and the conflict therein.

Or open up a hole in the edge of the known's physical borders (and also the edge of the playable game) just enough to let one of Reborn's new races show up. Do a role call in Staff announcements for people wanting to play in an unknown/secret group listing one or two role types they would like to play in such a group and jig-saw a well-rounded group of nomadic something-non-human/dwarf/elf to turn the world's knowledge of the world upside down.


(wow, that was suppose to be a brief, random thought.... oh well)

Following suit with FW's thoughts, instead of some call for Nobles - I would trip balls and apply immediately for a small group of Gith or Mantis.

Gets you into the game with a clear focus as well as a small and (hopefully) active player base to work with.

I think the reason that won't happen is the same reason why slave roles were closed off - too much work topside for too little benefit IG. Playing as a gith or mantis would either be a very isolated role, and detract from the larger playerbase, or else be a very limited one, with PC gith or mantis being immediately killed by PC hunters, warriors, etc.

Meh, I don't think giving PCs something to do besides mudsex, tavern sit, and skill advance would detract to much. Also, i would think with an all new group, there would be some slight skill bumps to get them ahead of the curve without them all dying trying to grind so that they can do their OOC job of causing trouble.  Gith would work, though come to think of it, Mantis would be a kill on site for food or protection of food thingy so not so good to help make the game more fun.

[Wolfsong]

I don't see how opening yet another race, isolating and separating the playerbase even further, would encourage roleplay in a large enough way to warrant all the work that goes into it - think about it. These are enemy races that are typically killed on sight. Roleplay is limited to before, and after, combat. There is little wriggle room there (though I won't say there isn't any at all.) I just think that the amount of work required to get a group of mantis or gith going outweighs the potential benefit - players get to see a few unique emotes, maybe, before they kill or are killed by them.

I don't see how it encourages plots, either. If players aren't doing that on their own (as they should be, since admin aren't going to), why would a few PC gith or mantis change that? If they are unable to create plots while playing more mundane races, or magickers, how will they suddenly be able to do so as a mantis or a gith?

[Gunnerblaster]

From my own perspective on the game, things seem to consolidated. Players/PC's/Forces are too "content" to just sit with what they have. The only group that I've seen actively "shaking it up" is the Byn's mandatory suicide missions which seem to get players involved, for a time, but then tends to die off (most times literally).

Being frank, there isn't anything to "shake things up", like there used to be and whenever I log in - everything just feels bland and repetitive.

I know, I know - Someone's bound to hit me with that cover-all blanket statement of, "Be the change", but - to me - it almost seems like people just aren't interested in putting up the effort of change. Usually, when something new rolls around, people tend to just ignore it and do their own thing - Unless it's something epic enough to draw in many players.

[Wolfsong]

Not to turn this into a discussion about whether or not a "hands off" staffing policy works in the long term - but players are lazy and can/will only do so much. Sometimes a good IMM plot, something big and scary, is what's needed.

[Erythil]

I would play a kenku

Like a boss

[Down Under]

Looking for a group of friendly raiders? Go no further than the T'zai Byn.

Seriously, they should be treated like serial murderers kept in line (barely) by money.

[Dakota]

Everything written in the first post in this thread.

Epic +1. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. Be it none of those holding each others hands between Tuluk and Nak, a new raider group (be it a vNPC or NPC tribe that gets opened or something completely new), gith, mantis, some invading force from the islands or someplace far away.. Anything. Even better if it didn't revolve around some super sorc trying to bring the end of the world or something but simply carving out a piece for themselves.

...things seem to consolidated. Players/PC's/Forces are too "content" to just sit with what they have. The only group that I've seen actively "shaking it up" is the Byn's mandatory suicide missions...

Being frank, there isn't anything to "shake things up", like there used to be and whenever I log in - everything just feels bland and repetitive...

I agree with the contentedness and consolidation, but the Byn isn't the only group shaking things up. They just move all over compared to other groups which only sit about in their area.

[Qzzrbl]

the Guild's crime is too organized.

Are you high?

[Cutthroat]

I don't agree with a lot of this.

We already have PCs that can get into antagonist positions in the various playing areas. I find that preferable to PC-run groups that antagonize for the sake of antagonizing. Why? Because it feels more natural in a world like Zalanthas to do something for some sort of gain. In that way, even the most noble, good deed can secretly or not-so-secretly have more selfish intentions.

There are widespread efforts to involve players in interesting things, and it's sad when it goes unnoticed because people are looking for the big plots of old. Even if it's not the exact type of conflict you are looking for, it -is- conflict on a slightly lower scale, and you can try to learn to enjoy it. Otherwise, start a group of antagonists the old-fashioned way and recruit a bunch of desperate bastards willing to raid, or to kill and eat overhunters. The only thing better than a gith or a mantis is a human (or elf, or dwarf, etc) that has one or two aspects from a more savage race, and all the needs and wants of their own race. I don't know about you, but to me, a dwarf with the focus to rid the North Road of travelers seems far more interesting to me than a member of a group of gith that randomly attacks PCs on the road.

The only part I agree with is that playing a pure antagonist can be hard. Well, I argue that's how it should be. It should be harder to be an "outlaw" in a world where there are pockets of power throughout the world that don't want to be messed with. Working against that is going to be harder than conforming, but that's part of the fun of playing such characters.

[Celest]

Personally, I think that there's a lot of antagonists in the game and antagonizing actions, but they're done in a manner that minimizes consequences (and thus RP) or makes the RP inaccessible for most of the playerbase. The players of these characters aren't doing that to spite people, of course, and it certainly makes sense to do things that way (I'll explain why), but the result is that it can feel like there are no antagonists or plots going around.

One of the most common antagonists I've seen is "The Thief." You know, that person who pilfers every apartment in the city in a single night, taking everything that isn't bolted down. Or the person who steals the weapons off your belt every time you enter the tavern. This is an extremely common form of antagonist in Zalanthas, but for reasons that are obvious, it's one that doesn't lead to much interaction. If most people were able to interact with The Thief regularly, then they would probably kill them or use (what are in my opinion) slightly metagamey methods to make sure others know who they are. Example: You're a thief, want to create more public RP, so you RP costuming yourself as much as you can. You cover every wearloc in bandages to hide any identifying marks, get a hood, raise it up, and set a Tdesc that says your face is covered. People, unwittingly, may still "identify" you from your mdesc, or your height (XYZ PC is the only elf, and this person is too tall to be anything but an elf, so this self-confessing thief is XYZ PC), or any other number of things. Therefore, it's in the thief's best interests to not interact with other players on that level, despite being an incredibly common and viable antagonist. This makes RP with The Thief very removed from the public, available only to select roles (such as other thieves, or the military groups who arrest them).

This is actually a pattern that repeats often. Because most antagonism would get the character killed, or make enemies, it has to be done in secret or as removed from potential conflicts as possible. This results in people only-in-the-know having access to these plots and conflicts and antagonists, which makes people not-in-the-know sort of disgruntled, bored, or otherwise frustrated at the lack of conflict plots available to them. Hence, the requests for a large, public sort of conflict plot, like the old HRPTs.

Without resorting to calling for more HRPTs (which will probably get this thread locked and wouldn't be a long term solution anyway), or more Imm involvement, it's hard to find a "simple" solution to the issue. You can suggest that players simply don't do whatever is in their power to get an antagonist destroyed, which might encourage them to bring more of that RP to the mainstream, but then you have a Prisoner's Dilemma sort of issue: If Person A doesn't destroy the antagonist then there's no guarantee that Person B will do the same. If Person B does, it could lead to less RP for others, for the chance of getting themselves recognized by people who do have access to the out-of-sight antagonists and involving that person in them. Thus it is in Person A and B's interest to be the ones to eliminate the antagonist. Now multiply that by all of the people in the Antagonists' sphere of influence, and then add IC motivations on top of it. Even if a player does not want to kill the antagonist just to try and involve themselves in higher plots, their character might want to do that to impress the Powers That Be. Or out of a personal Vendetta. Or because the Antagonist is competition. And so on. So because of the IC/OOC nature, with both what the player wants and what the character wants influencing IC actions, it makes the Prisoner's-Dilemma-esque situation even more skewed in favor of the selfish choice.

The only practical way I can think of which would serve to create more, or more public antagonists without HRPTs or direct Imm intervention is for the Imms to reward people who take the trouble of making good antagonists, maybe equating it to the sort of respect/scrutiny that one would get if they were to hold a leadership position? They may already do this, as it is, and it's still sort of a cheat solution because technically it is more Imm involvement, it's simply from the bureaucratic end instead of the gameplay end.

Edit: Maybe some existing IG clans could (or maybe do) exist for the purpose of have one aspect of their existence be to serve as antagonists to certain groups? It would help solve the population decrease and isolation issue that would be raised by having Antagonist-calls in lieu of nobles calls, such as the mantis role mentioned elsewhere. I can already see some evidence of these sorts of things existing, such as thief-clans and militia-clans having an (in a very general sense) adversarial relationship, or the Arm of the Dragon and the Legion of the Sun King having adversarial relationships. Or, say, certain tribes with certain city organizations. The noble houses are also supposed to vie for influence with one another, IIRC. Maybe there should be more of an emphasis on those aspects, both from players and from Imms of those orgs?

[Nyr]

I posted a lot about this two years ago in a thread about crime (that turned into a thread about being antagonists in general, etc.).  When I see similar topics pop up again, I tend towards being a bit more blunt in explanation.

Playing antagonists that are realistic is hard to do, so let's get staff to help us play realistic antagonists by giving us the structure to do it without any of the startup work? 

No, thanks.

Do it IC, get back to me in a few months. 

Why?  How?  Let's go with why first.

Why?  You'll get more respect from other players.  This shit is hard, and no one that has the power to oppose you is really going to respect your magickally-appearing, suddenly-powerful antagonist.  They're going to resent you for being tossed a cookie like that, and I wouldn't blame them for deep-sixing your antagonist plot by flaunting their own power they've gained the hard way--social capital, political capital, or hell, templar capital granted right out of the box by virtue of being chosen by staff to play a templar.  There's only so much to go around, but if someone previously unknown starts pissing in their plot cereal without even a "howdy-do," you can expect irrational displays of IC annoyance and quick spending of that power that they've amassed.

Why?  You'll enjoy the fact that you did this crap yourself. When I play a PC I built myself/pushed to higher heights via my own mettle in-game, I always feel better about it.

How?  Play an organic PC.  Vader didn't start out as a Sith Lord.  Now, you can't play child Anakin, but you can play teenager Anakin, and have him make the choices he makes to become an influential and dangerous bad guy.  Respect knuckles for backstory and realistic roleplay.  You might even get more followers, sympathetic ears, or ambivalent people rather than folks that just want to see your obviously-evil plots ruined.

How?  Keep us informed about what you're doing.  "I'm not clanned, though!" you say.  That's fine.  You've got clan staff even so.  I've given advice to burgeoning badasses before, depending on what they were interested in learning about or how to proceed.

Problems with doing it yourself:

It's hard.
It takes longer.
Some jerk might kill your PC before you've even gotten far enough to do your awesome transition to awesomeness. (however, this can always happen)
There's no set path to follow.

Yep.  Them's the problems.  I really think that the average player can overcome those problems, though!  If you have doubts or have questions, ask your clan staff. 

[Tisiphone]

Another difficulty lies in the tradition of roleplay we have here on this MUD. I'll paint it in short strokes, because this thread isn't the place to talk about, "What is roleplay?"

There are several kinds of players, but here I'm primarily concerned with two:

One wants to tell an awesome (or even not so awesome) story. We'll call this guy the Storyteller, not to be confused with the staff position.

The second wants to play a character. We'll call him the Method Actor.

(Anyone who's read Robin's Law's of Good Game-Mastering knows where I'm getting the names.)

The problem lies in the fact that these two play-styles are distinct.

So how does this play into the problem at hand?

Armageddon, as an RPI MUD, is primarily biased toward the Method Actor. True, there is plenty here for the other types of player, even those who just want to kill raptors. However, we're all expected to at least make a few attempts at real characterization, even when what we really want is to amass all the lootz and wimmins for ourselves - we shove that motivation IC, to justify it. (Note that I'm describing a phenomenon, not making judgments about it.)

What does this mean for you? It means, in a nutshell, that in order to get done what you want to get done, you need to take a couple lessons from the Method Actor.

Now, one of the basic, basic things he understand about role-playing is that you don't just paint your canvas with a brush and work off of that. His characters aren't "sad" or "angry" or "happy". For the Method Actor, his character's actions, discourse, and everything else is about intention. He isn't playing a sad character; he's playing a character whose sister just died of sloughskin and who is afraid he might also have caught it. He isn't playing an angry character; he's playing a character whose one true wish in life was to see his son accepted in the Bardic Circles, only to be thwarted by political manoeuvring that has nothing intrinsic to do with him and that he has no control over. He isn't playing a happy character; he's playing a character who won big at a game of Kruth and has gone out on the town to share his mood and his winnings.

The same is true with antagonists. If you want to play one, you need to step back and say, "How do I make this character a real person? Why does he do what he does?" If he hates something, why does he hate it? If he's an opportunistic prig, why does he take advantage of people? How does he feel about it, and how does he view it himself? In short, why does he do what he does, internally, separate from why you as a player drive him?

That's really the only way to create a character in any role who is interesting enough to keep and interesting enough to play around. And, therefore, the only real way to play a character who gains enough longevity to do what you want.

However, this isn't just about necessity. The need to do this isn't just foisted on you by Armageddon's bias toward characterization and personification*. This is also how the best stories are written. Richard II and Edmund aren't just villains; they're people, almost transcendentally so, and it is their personalities that drive the stories (and that keep us enthralled when we watch them on-stage).

Ask yourself which is the better story: the one where the characters are effectively extensions of the plot, doing what the story requires, or the one where the characters themselves, in their interactions and motivations drive the plot forward?

[My 2 sids]

We already have many antagonists built in -- simply read the docs -- with clans already open and going.  What I think has happened is the PC population has played so many "exceptions to the rule"  we've made a very tangled web connecting too many PCs into one lump of uneasy contentment.  Between the "alliances"/ double agents/ and spy networks -- suddenly a large percentage of the PC population is one another's pockets.  

This connects directly with the "there's not enough hate" threads.

Zalanthas, as it stands for Arm.1, is a "top-down" structure.  So, as wonderful and easy as it may be for staff to give players a lot of options when it comes making decisions -- it needs to be remembered that blue-robes and Jr nobles, still need to be given direct clan orders from the higher-ups.  Remember, those PCs at the bottom don't have the clout to go say "look, our clan needs to oppose this" ... the PCs at the mid-level are the ones who have made all these tangled webs,  so they're not going to change their ways (and simultaneously put down any bottom-run ideas) until their superiors (Staff NPCs) tell them they're out of line.  As in "you can't just keep killing off a clanned PC -- such isn't realistic because it's too dangerous.  You make trouble for VNPCs of your house)

All we need to do is to cut all these ties -- cut out the tangle and start fresh.   That would make a defined line between the law and the "bad guys";  it would mean a huge, feared gap between templarate and commoners (which is why the templarate need the nobility); it would make GMHs become in greater competition, in realistic manner,  for the sids.
   

[Bacon]

There are some out there playing the antagonists. (Kudos to those of you doing it.) The problem as I see it is that noone wants to do anything about them when they pop up. Everybody seems to want to make a deal or just avoid them instead of plotting against them and trying to take them out. So they're working to create conflict but nobody bites.

[Synthesis]

There are some out there playing the antagonists. (Kudos to those of you doing it.) The problem as I see it is that noone wants to do anything about them when they pop up. Everybody seems to want to make a deal or just avoid them instead of plotting against them and trying to take them out. So they're working to create conflict but nobody bites.

The first rule of bite club:  don't talk about bite club.

[Barzalene]

I really liked Nyr's answer here. In the past Nyr and I have had our clashes on the boards (though I've always found himsupportive and  easy to work with when dealing with him as a clan imm) and I think that's because often he doesn't go on to explain beyond the no.

And when he does explain beyond the no, I find it easier to see his point. I think do the start up work and then ask is a reasonable compromise.

[FantasyWriter]

I really liked Nyr's answer here.

I do as well, and am thankful for it.
(it was a while after I got my un-explained request tool no before I checked the GDB)

The problem I have seen, My 2 Sids worded well about everyone being in everyone else's pockets.

As a powerful individual it is fairly easy to stir up conflicts, I greatly enjoy playing such PCs. :evil grin:
But clans seem to be afraid to piss off other clans.
Indy group A doesn't want to make Indy group B pissy.
City State A is content with City State B taking up half of the "civilized" world.
Yes, I know all but the last one is the Fault of Content, or More-Concerned-With-My-Personal-Saftey PCs.

I guess I would just like to see more conflict on a large scale, instead of solo-baddie A pisses in power C's koolaid, then power brings Power B, secret sorc that noone is suppose to do anything with but kill on sight, rouge witches T and H even though my clan is suppose to forsake all types of gickery, and enemy, but currently enemy of my enemy power F. They all agree to squish baddie A then go back about their business.
THIS IS GOOD CONFLICT, but it's about all I have witnessed in a while.

Some times I wish the world had a reset button for powers, deals, and PC alliances (although I don't think it would ever be a good idea to actually use it.)
HRPTS are good reset buttons but they are few and far in between.

[Talia]

Problems with doing it yourself:

It's hard.
It takes longer.
Some jerk might kill your PC before you've even gotten far enough to do your awesome transition to awesomeness. (however, this can always happen)
There's no set path to follow.

Yep.  Them's the problems.  I really think that the average player can overcome those problems, though!  If you have doubts or have questions, ask your clan staff. 

I agree with Nyr completely except for his analysis of what the problems are. I think the #1 problem most players have is just not dying to that scrab or vestric or gith. I see it happen over and over and over again, in every clan, and especially in clans where there aren't any rules governing where PCs go and what they do. Unfortunately, staff-side, we have found that bumping PC skills and/or apping players into these roles really doesn't help much; Byn Sergeants die faster than anyone else, mostly because players aren't smart and patient about how they play.

Please, get out there and play the badass antagonists. We'd love to see you do that. We'd love to support you in doing that. But don't expect staff to do it for you, and don't think that there is some magickal cure other than player patience and perseverance. Most players decidedly do not have the patience and perseverance necessary for this type of role, and apping players who don't into those roles really doesn't help.

[palomar]

There are some out there playing the antagonists. (Kudos to those of you doing it.) The problem as I see it is that noone wants to do anything about them when they pop up. Everybody seems to want to make a deal or just avoid them instead of plotting against them and trying to take them out. So they're working to create conflict but nobody bites.

Maybe that's sometimes the case. My experience is the opposite though. The closing of the Red Fangs tribe was a direct result of "people doing something about a group of antagonists", to take a somewhat recent example. Of course, sometimes, and depending on clan/individual it is easier/preferrable to strike deals or avoid the antagonists. It can be very difficult to pull a clan into a conflict with another group, but it is definitely not impossible.

[Armaddict]

Problems with doing it yourself:

It's hard.
It takes longer.
Some jerk might kill your PC before you've even gotten far enough to do your awesome transition to awesomeness. (however, this can always happen)
There's no set path to follow.

Yep.  Them's the problems.  I really think that the average player can overcome those problems, though!  If you have doubts or have questions, ask your clan staff. 

I agree with Nyr completely except for his analysis of what the problems are. I think the #1 problem most players have is just not dying to that scrab or vestric or gith. I see it happen over and over and over again, in every clan, and especially in clans where there aren't any rules governing where PCs go and what they do. Unfortunately, staff-side, we have found that bumping PC skills and/or apping players into these roles really doesn't help much; Byn Sergeants die faster than anyone else, mostly because players aren't smart and patient about how they play.

Please, get out there and play the badass antagonists. We'd love to see you do that. We'd love to support you in doing that. But don't expect staff to do it for you, and don't think that there is some magickal cure other than player patience and perseverance. Most players decidedly do not have the patience and perseverance necessary for this type of role, and apping players who don't into those roles really doesn't help.

Just to be honest...it's actually probably because the skill bumps given for such positions are generally miniscule, and a Sergeant getting his ass absolutely handed to him by runners generally works very hard to get to a point of actual combat leadership quickly.  Resulting in death.

That's just what I hear, and makes sense.  Not smart, but it makes sense.

[Potaje]

I just want to state that there are antagonists on many different levels as well. Be it from clan in fighting to space vestrics beyond the known, antagonists are prevalent and constant. Not all really seem that enjoyable to everyone, but there there.

Militia and criminals, there is defiantly a  healthy group of back and forth there. Not always actively facing off to emote with each other, but really is that a must in an antagonist, or is it the hunt for them.

Criminals and non-militia, somewhat the same as above, however I will say that to those that do the - loot all - your a bit out of line and that has been a topic of heated discussion, your not cool, your not enjoyable, and your not showing you talents, your simply being abusive. However, those that are knocking folks out to steal a thing or two off them, or break into an apartment and mess it up, take a few things and leave a calling card, these are the ones building a reputation and doing it right, with out giving away their identity (or sometimes not). As for the thief stealing weapons from people every time they go into a tavern, learn to run, if you want to be noticed while not being noticed.

As for outside the city antagonists, there are a few things that transition around from group to group and city to city. These things are currently occurring in the game world and are player driven. If your not in the know and want to be, travel and get in good with people in different regions that you might find out the skinny of it.
Or

Pay travelers for stories and information about whats going on around the known, then get involved.

Now if your in a clan stuck in a city, which happens, things can run slim, perhaps the antagonists you think would be fun are not around, or if you want to be that antagonist or a fun one for others, spend sometime getting a feel of the environment then gear your criteria towards it.

As for raider groups and the such, dig deeper in game, they are there, when one closes another always opens.

[Derain]

OK well here is my little nitpick on this. I've noticed far too often people seem to be too OOCly scared to out out how something would be handled if it were a RL situation because they don't want to lose a character they have had for so long.

"Oh Sarge Bob got killed by the bloods on 14th street?" 

  "Oh well shit happens" - New Sergeant

This is just a vague example as most of the ones I can show in game I can't post.

[CravenMadness]

You'll have -way- more fun if you take a 'do it yourself' attitude.


There's a certain thrill involved in suddenly discovering you have more admin attention and 'support' than you realized...

Or that people know about your character, and are actually asking about gossip when traveling between cities.

But.. it -will- come to an end.  Might be a lot to swallow when it happens.

[Ktavialt]

I think that the OP is really saying something else than everybody is responding to.  He wants conflict that takes the form of overt physical (and/or I suppose magickal) combat between PC groups that just plain hate each other or otherwise have every reason to attack each other on sight, if they feel they can kill the other PC.  The examples he gave were mantis and gith, which is exactly what that was supposed to be.

The Allanak/Tuluk copper wars situation was similar to the mantis/gith versus travelers thing, which is why that was sort of brought up.

I believe Nyr's response was focused on the difference between a badass-upon-special-application versus developing your own badass/conflict guy slowly.  These are completely different concepts.  I think the OPs wants and Nyr's response missed each other completely - didn't address each other at all.

The OP was also interested in skill boosts for these overt-conflict characters.  The main reason behind that is that you're playing a role that has a high likelihood of dying due to constant conflict, and to spend a month (and this is ridiculously lowballing it) building up a character to the point of being able to compete with more than the most newbiest of newbies just to see it very quickly get whacked due to the nature of the role, would blow.  The moment that everybody hears of XYZ gith PCs popping up, every decked 30 day warrior/gemmer/sorcerer is rushing to the Tablelands to kick the crap out of them and be the hero.  I recall this happening when I played a gith character years ago; they had incredibly short life spans because every high-powered PC was gunning for them.  They just never seemed to have a chance.

Personally I agree with the OP.  I like the overt physical/magickal fighting conflict, and I like the idea particularly of giving more human intelligence to creatures in the wastes.  But, it is probably time intensive (due to high turnover/new apps), would probably need to be more automated to deal with the constant character setup/new coding involved, and I am just going to imagine that its not what the imm staff wants.  Gith, Halfling, Mantis, Gladiators - all similar things Imms tried and then said uhh... no more of that.  

[Ktavialt]

fyi I'm taking a few liberties with what I think the main point of the OPs was, but I think it was the underlying reason for his post