Antagonize.... like a Boss.

[Synthesis]

I'm not sure the imms really want more PC on PC violence, because that sort of thing tends to increase the rate that people bitch about it, either OOCly or via player complaints.

I mean, I do my thing for years and nobody complains...then I roll up a PC that actually has a habit of killing other PCs and WHOO BOY, NOW SHIT JUST GOT REAL, HOLD ON SON.

[John]

Sometimes being an antagonist is as simple as hating one of the permissible minorities. Half-Elves, Magickers, Nakkies/Tulukies (depending on location), Elves (not really minorities but still fun to hate on). Don't hate on every single member of this group. Pick one, make their life hell, and try to even get other members of the same minority to join in on the hating.

In character why would you do this? The easiest way to get accepted, make friends and have people respect you is to bully someone else, make everyone laugh and force him to slink off or bow down to you (or attack you at which point you either hand him his arse or you convince everyone else to join in on the fight).

Out of character you've just made an enemy for life. You've had a more interesting night then simply tavern sitting. You've also made yourself seem a bit more important and gain a small amount of respect.

[X-D]

I'm not sure the imms really want more PC on PC violence, because that sort of thing tends to increase the rate that people bitch about it, either OOCly or via player complaints.

I mean, I do my thing for years and nobody complains...then I roll up a PC that actually has a habit of killing other PCs and WHOO BOY, NOW SHIT JUST GOT REAL, HOLD ON SON.

QFT.

I have run into the exact same problem.

That and other things have led me to believe staff is not really interested in more overt conflict. And that many of the players are not either, at least not on the small or player scale. None of them mind the really big stuff...though that has not been happening either.

Nothing annoys me more then to hear a templar, from either citystate worry about angering the other city state.
Alright, When it is a nakki templar, that annoys me the most. I mean Come on, Nakki templars worried about keeping the peace? HAHAHAHAHA...lame.

[John]

Alright, When it is a nakki templar, that annoys me the most. I mean Come on, Nakki templars worried about keeping the peace? HAHAHAHAHA...lame.

That is pretty lame.

Where have all the real templars gone?

[Dalmeth]

Why aren't there more antagonists?  Because a character that defines itself as an antagonist is a jerk.  I've been a leader in many clans, and I've seen many characters who could be defined as such.

In almost all cases, they were a drain both emotionally and in time.

What people really want is excitement, so whenever antagonizing, put on a show.  Wear something scary and use the prickliest most barbed weapon you can find.  Have a few puns ready to annoy your intended victim.  Offer an unfair trade : a pretty flower for all your coin and intact intestines.

Before I hear some raider complain about how they'll run away, the problem there is you somehow need to raid this one person to continue.  That's not the point.  This is a game, and as soon as you start needing to do anything, you ruin it for everyone else.  Only start raiding when you've got the resources where you don't actually need to.  Remember, a raider is a greedy bastard, not a desperate one.

Do something gloriously UNnecessary .

[Riya OniSenshi]

Alright, When it is a nakki templar, that annoys me the most. I mean Come on, Nakki templars worried about keeping the peace? HAHAHAHAHA...lame.

That is pretty lame.

Where have all the real templars gone?

Killed by their minions.

[FantasyWriter]

For the record, I do play antagonists from the ground up, I try to do it about once or twice a year, some times they live long enough to draw attention, sometime they are just annoying ICly (intentional, sometimes they die to a scrab on their first day out. I do agree that PCs are more enjoyable when worked form the ground up. I happen to enjoy the grind and the edge of your seat fights with things that you will be able to squash with your left pinky toe in a few RL months.

Also, you can play violent raiders and whatnot without PKing (so long as the victim doesn't get trigger happy with the kill command.
I mean... if you kill a character, they're not alive for you to raid again! Not very good for business.

[Cutthroat]

Alright, When it is a nakki templar, that annoys me the most. I mean Come on, Nakki templars worried about keeping the peace? HAHAHAHAHA...lame.

That is pretty lame.

Where have all the real templars gone?

I don't see avoiding city-state conflict as lame. I think risk assessment is one of the most desirable skills in Zalanthas. Does anyone really want to do something that could get themselves killed, if it's not worth the risk? With the way things are, you could still play a carefree blue robe that ends up dragging Allanak into a protracted conflict with Tuluk... good luck not catching flack for it though. You also have the option of playing a templar that does want to keep his job, rather than get transferred to "mining office supervisor" by getting a bunch of soldiers and civilians killed.

When people say that PCs are avoiding risk and conflict is down because of it... isn't that exactly how it's supposed to be? The PCs know they could get fired, or die, and tailor their actions to avoid those consequences. They don't avoid conflict entirely, but they take on a reasonable level of conflict. How is that anything but good roleplay?

[Is Friday]

As a player who consistently plays antagonists, I can attest that it is difficult at times. Even frustrating and pointless, in some situations. Echoing Synth's comments, there are some players that feel that there is no speeds beside GO/NO GO, or: KILL/DON'T KILL.

Being an antagonist can be much more than raiding, backstabbing, or ending PC life. My favorite antagonists are the assholes. You can play some serious asshole in this game. Unfortunately, some people take it too far when responding to assholes. Keeping within the context of the game is difficult, because some peeps get too caught up in "MY HONOR!" or "MY MAIDEN'S TREASURED FEELINGS!" I understand that a lot of the cultures, environments, situations, and characters are very different in their reactions--but overall, unless they have someone at a clear disadvantage, too many players are unwilling to engage in fruitless conflict. A few go so far as to play the "neener neener you can't touch me because of crim code" card.

And by "fruitless conflict" I mean from a player's coded perspective. In my experiences, far too many players will not engage in conflict that does not "get them something" of the coded nature. Which is unfortunate, because all valuable conflict is much deeper than that. Rivalries are fun and unfortunately there are too few of these that do not end in the hiring of super maxed assassins, etc.

With all that being said: I have had many great scenes from the more experienced players who offer a little trust in me/others and put themselves out there, despite having fears that their PC may die because of it.

[Bacon]

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.

Agreed. I've not played one of the special app sergeants but I've played with them and it's pretty silly when your "experienced tough-as-mek-in-heat" Byn sergeant gets bitchslapped around by the troopers and some of the runners in the clan. That position, in a clan like that, being able to kick ass kinda comes with the job.

[musashi]

Just with regards to Byn Sgts. I have never understood why that role is a role call position, rather than a position earned through play like all the other sergeant likes roles offered in game. You know, militia officers, first hunters, fist officers, ect.

It always seemed to me that growing that role from the ground up would solve the problem.

[Gunnerblaster]

Just with regards to Byn Sgts. I have never understood why that role is a role call position, rather than a position earned through play like all the other sergeant likes roles offered in game. You know, militia officers, first hunters, fist officers, ect.

It always seemed to me that growing that role from the ground up would solve the problem.

Except when everyone in the unit gets slaughtered, along with the Sergeant, on the previous mission and only the Runners who weren't able to go were the ones to survive?

[musashi]

You make it sound like the whole point of a Byn Sargent is to be a clerk stand in so staff don't have to deal with admissions. 

[Wolfsong]

My only problem with Byn Sergeant app-in roles is that every single one seems to try and be Badass McGrizzled Former Trooper Who Beat His Way To The Top With His Beefy Sex Fists. I've never really seen the Zalanthan equivalent of a butter bar running around.

[Is Friday]

My only problem with Byn Sergeant app-in roles is that every single one seems to try and be Badass McGrizzled Former Trooper Who Beat His Way To The Top With His Beefy Sex Fists. I've never really seen the Zalanthan equivalent of a butter bar running around.

Read the Byn Sergeant documentation if you get a chance.

edit:
I made this post and then realized that you have played a Byn Sergeant before. But seriously, I think the answer lies within the docs if you remember them. The role itself does not really leave you with the ability to do anything without the assurance that you can stomp some ass when it comes down to it.

[KankWhisperer]

The problem in my opinion is just too many clans and not enough players to go around.

[Kismetic]

A tad of metagame thinking in this thread.  A few thoughts:

- Your rockstar raider group, mantis clutch, gith sex pile or whatever you're hoping the staff would approve simply won't make sense.  You're asking them to do work to set up four special PCs, of which two are bound to be dead in a month, because your group lacks true infrastructure.  Furthermore, this method lacks the organic feel, and could be an eyesore from a storytelling perspective.

- If you want to see more antagonistic attitudes, play the roles, lay the groundwork for future adversarial conditions.  Have a goal, and play the game, not the game.

- Killing a ton of PCs off because "that's my character" is lame, destroys game balance, and is pretty much powergaming, unless you can prove as to why Armageddon's story should be about your chacracter/clan only.

- Conflict can be created in many ways, and it will help to look at your character, and others, as human beings.  PK and looting and the threat of violence are not the only ways to achieve it.  In fact, they seem fairly vanilla, to me.

- Nice suggestion, at least, if not infeasible.  Be the change.


~K

[My 2 sids]

When people say that PCs are avoiding risk and conflict is down because of it... isn't that exactly how it's supposed to be? The PCs know they could get fired, or die, and tailor their actions to avoid those consequences. They don't avoid conflict entirely, but they take on a reasonable level of conflict. How is that anything but good roleplay?

Yes and no.  Avoiding conflict with one's betters or with the "just on this side of the law" big-bad-bynner may be realistic for the game.  However, avoiding conflict with those who are at the same or lower level of oneself -- isn't that realistic.  I don't see the NPCs/VNPCs asking themselves, "Maybe I should leave this 'rinither breed alone on the off chance they're actually really rich and can pay off the soldier/templar/my employer to have me get in trouble."

Life in Zalanthas is not fair, there is limited justice   so some of this "conflict"  shouldn't even be considered as anything more than the accepted norm.  If lowly-aide Amosa goes crying to Lord Fancy saying, "Amos was mean and insulting to me"  the Lord's first response should be, "Amos was mean to *my* house?  or to you? Because if Amos is being mean to you not only is that life, but I'm going to now see _you_ as a trouble maker and deal with you accordingly." 

[Nyr]

Just with regards to Byn Sgts. I have never understood why that role is a role call position, rather than a position earned through play like all the other sergeant likes roles offered in game. You know, militia officers, first hunters, fist officers, ect.

It always seemed to me that growing that role from the ground up would solve the problem.

We look for both. There are stipulations for what we look for within the Byn ranks for internal promotion. Lately it is rare to see someone meet requirements. The answer is not to just promote someone who doesn't meet those requirements.

[Nyr]

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.

Agreed. I've not played one of the special app sergeants but I've played with them and it's pretty silly when your "experienced tough-as-mek-in-heat" Byn sergeant gets bitchslapped around by the troopers and some of the runners in the clan. That position, in a clan like that, being able to kick ass kinda comes with the job.

Even before we made a new standard on this (treating a sponsored role like a special application--3 CGP for use in the role), we boosted skills on Byn Sergeants and other non-templar sponsored roles.  We tried boosting them past the point of players already in the clan.  That didn't seem to work well in role retention (either fearless mentality that resulted in early death, or bored mentality that resulted in early storage).  We lowered it from that point.  In some cases these boosts have been claimed to be miniscule.  While we do disagree with this notion (the boosts at the time were still higher than the current standards), we have been looking overall at storage rates for sponsored role retention so that we can develop some standards both in supporting and in dealing with such roles.

Still, this doesn't seem like it has much to do with playing an antagonist (the Byn usually supports the needs and wants of other antagonists).  It does underline the importance of biding one's time and developing a rapport with at least some other characters prior to becoming an antagonist to other characters, though.

[Cutthroat]

When people say that PCs are avoiding risk and conflict is down because of it... isn't that exactly how it's supposed to be? The PCs know they could get fired, or die, and tailor their actions to avoid those consequences. They don't avoid conflict entirely, but they take on a reasonable level of conflict. How is that anything but good roleplay?

Yes and no.  Avoiding conflict with one's betters or with the "just on this side of the law" big-bad-bynner may be realistic for the game.  However, avoiding conflict with those who are at the same or lower level of oneself -- isn't that realistic.  I don't see the NPCs/VNPCs asking themselves, "Maybe I should leave this 'rinither breed alone on the off chance they're actually really rich and can pay off the soldier/templar/my employer to have me get in trouble."

Life in Zalanthas is not fair, there is limited justice   so some of this "conflict"  shouldn't even be considered as anything more than the accepted norm.  If lowly-aide Amosa goes crying to Lord Fancy saying, "Amos was mean and insulting to me"  the Lord's first response should be, "Amos was mean to *my* house?  or to you? Because if Amos is being mean to you not only is that life, but I'm going to now see _you_ as a trouble maker and deal with you accordingly." 

True enough. I can't recall a time I've seen a lack of superiors messing around with inferiors within the past few years, though that may just be me. When I wrote what I did, I was specifically referring to the large-scale conflict that X-D and John seemed to be lamenting wasn't coming from templars anymore.

[Dakota]

Nothing annoys me more then to hear a templar, from either citystate worry about angering the other city state.

Alright, When it is a nakki templar, that annoys me the most. I mean Come on, Nakki templars worried about keeping the peace? HAHAHAHAHA...lame.

I did not play Arm before May of 2010. But I've read a hoard of the GDB posts that go faaaar back before that. I think the fact you never see any active Hawk Lobby in either city state against the other city state has sort of.. fed into any "we need more antagonist" sentiment.

Do I think a Templar wanting to keep the "Peace" between the two cities is bad? No. But its strange when you don't even feel so much of an animosity between the two cities when citizens of both meet on neutral ground. Usually when they meet at random in say Luirs, its cordial if not friendly... The last open conflict was.. What? Less than a few dozen years ago? I just find it hard to believe that despite each city being run by God-Kings, theirs not a group of senators, templars, nobles foaming for a war with the other city to 'finish the job'. Perhaps this is more of a staff / policy thing to NOT encourage war or hawkish actions to those players of Templars.

Will this led to more groups antagonizing like suggested in the first post? No. But it will promote more of what I think FW and others are getting at (and its structured). I just don't get why this sort of friction IG has been reduced, and it would be interesting to hear from staff; if it is staff induced or just from the actions from timid players in high powered positions. We don't need a full out war (would be nice though).

[Nyr]

I'm not sure the imms really want more PC on PC violence

This is not true.  We do enjoy PC conflict, even when (or especially when) it includes violence.  If people complain, they complain--that is not a reason for us to be against conflict that involves the death of another PC.  Usually my response to a complaint that "my PC died" is "we are sorry your PC lost its life, and we understand that attachment can develop there, but please read the rules of the game."  It's a nice way of saying "we've been there too, so please get over it." 

That and other things have led me to believe staff is not really interested in more overt conflict.

This is not true.  We do shoot down conflict ideas at times when the benefit is far, far outweighed by detriment.  We are interested in intelligent conflict, whether it be small-time or big-time.

Unrelated to these two posts:

We on staff have stuff in the works to do cool things.  Just like in the case of Reborn, we kindly ask that you stop requesting/hinting/implying that we do something and let us do what we do.  It may not be on your timetable, no.  You know what you can do to help, and that is communicate with staff with what your PC is up to/what you have planed/what little tidbits of a plot you want to work on. 

That's how this works, and if you disagree with the premise of this thread, or perhaps you have a few issues and can see room for improvement on this for the rest of the game, you're doing it right.  There's always room for improvement on anything, and approaching it this way after you are doing things correctly on your own front is important to do (things like reporting regularly, getting feedback on your own ideas and plots to antagonize, etc).


This, however, is NOT how it works:

You discuss problems with (or at least agree with the position put forth about) antagonist PCs and plots and the like, yet you are actually not having issues with this in game (evidenced by reports or your actual play in game in which you have proven you antagonize LIKE A BOSS).  This makes up at least 6% of posters in this thread at the time of this post, and this seems disingenuous.  Shame on you!  You aren't even having a problem, guys!  Tell other people WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL.
You discuss problems with (or at least agree with the position put forth about) antagonist PCs and plots and the like, yet you don't send in reports (whether that be at all, or sporadically).  This makes up at least 21% of posters in this thread at the time of this post, with one other that is borderline.

The "not how it works" stuff is annoying to see.  It's why staff are sometimes outright dismissive of claims of a issue.  It's evident that there is enough of an interest from players doing things right--enough to warrant review, or just some extra poking from staff in the future--but the "not how it works" folks skew the issue.

[Dakota]

Just a note of clarification (and perhaps in defense of) any Templars. I don't think they're doing a bad job. By far. Nor do I think that "they're doing it wrong."

But rather than say, add in a new IMM'd sponsored group of raiders or playable races that would antagonize, I think their is just room to push well documented and historical strife further via large cities or large houses back into a more visible way that promotes such "antagonist" to be RP'd from the top-trickle-down level. We're not lacking much (if anything) in terms of what is available, its just a question of what is being utilized and done on a player level and not so much a staff level (far as I can tell).

That being said I am not against having another sponsored raider group / opened race that would create / drive more antagonistic PC's / atmosphere.

Then again and as a PS: This could all be going on without even me seeing it. I know for certain in lesser populated areas their is a current HIGH degree of antagonistic PC's both clanned and unclanned and kudos to all of those.

EDIT: in the event I'm a 6% (i hope not), I can't tell what I'm doing bc my last two highly antagonistic PC's haven't passed the 12 month benchmark yet. The short version and way I can say it though, is don't give a shit about making it to 10 days, 20 days or 50 days or even 100 days. Don't carry any OOC motivations for your PC to "get strong and THEN I'll raise hell or do X,Y or Z." Out of the box, have a clear focus or aim that makes sense ICly and for the gameworld and PLAY. RP and know that RP between players is far more fullfilling that having your antagonism revolve only around "Kill XXXXX" or "cast mon XXXXX at XXXXX". When you rely on code, you're doing it wrong. When you RP it out and shake a certain area or even the whole known and it drags in others to get involved.. You're doing it right. And you don't need karma to get it done and MASSIVE high five on you if you did it w/o a karma role.

[roughneck]

EDIT: in the event I'm a 6% (i hope not), I can't tell what I'm doing bc my last two highly antagonistic PC's haven't passed the 12 month benchmark yet. The short version and way I can say it though, is don't give a shit about making it to 10 days, 20 days or 50 days or even 100 days. Don't carry any OOC motivations for your PC to "get strong and THEN I'll raise hell or do X,Y or Z." Out of the box, have a clear focus or aim that makes sense ICly and for the gameworld and PLAY. RP and know that RP between players is far more fullfilling that having your antagonism revolve only around "Kill XXXXX" or "cast mon XXXXX at XXXXX". When you rely on code, you're doing it wrong. When you RP it out and shake a certain area or even the whole known and it drags in others to get involved.. You're doing it right. And you don't need karma to get it done and MASSIVE high five on you if you did it w/o a karma role.

Agreed.

I make a lot of antagonist pc's as well.  You don't typically live long but it's the msot fun to be had in this game.  It's true, you don't need coded power and you don't need to be  badass.  If you're going toe to toe, you're going to get owned sooner than later.  Most succesful criminals/terrorists/whatever don't become successful by having full on confrontations.  Isolate and target the weak, wait for opportunities, lie, cheat, steal - none of these things require a great deal of coded skills or abilities.   You don't have to be a badass to be a successful antagonist.

The bonus is that if you survive very long doing the above and fending for yourself because of the isolation your crimes have placed you in, you'll become a badass soon enough.