A reminder on racial roleplay re: Half Elves...

[Revenant]

You know why any babies, ever, make it? Because they are cute. Cute is the survival mechanism of babies. Because without the cuteness that for whatever reason inspires humans/elves/gith to take care of these tiny, wretched, miserable, shitty, loud creatures--we would eat them or conveniently "forget" them someplace. The babies of some species can start to take care of themselves pretty quickly, so they stop being cute after not too long. Human(oid) babies are cute for a long time because they are so fucking annoying and dependent for so fucking long.

By the time that half-breed baby/toddler/kid isn't cute anymore, it's already able to take care of itself. And it should.

Lots of parents actually hate their children IRL, but keep taking care of them anyway, up to a point. That's always been a hard, sad truth of this awful, crazy world we live in.

I guess my point is: There's IC justification for however you want to play it. Let's not make it so difficult, and let's just give players of half-elves the benefit of the doubt.

qfmft

And on another note.

Half-giants are slow, easily confused, and have sometimes tragic misinterpretation of instructions. Some are childlike, naturally curious. Their memory is perfectly functional, though their interpretation of their reflection may be, oddly simplified to the point of absurdity. Where they really shine is imitation. If they don't already, I'd think they should pick up languages and accents quite a bit quicker than others. I find "dumb" to be a word whose meaning varies from person to person, and so perhaps not a sufficient word. This does not mean the half-giant is incapable of thought, it just means it's a hazardous process for the everyone involved. If I see a half-giant supergenius, OOC my first thoughts are that they've been taken over by something else. IC I'm like, wow, that's the smartest half-giant I've ever met.

Now, there are a number of ways to conceptualize the half-giant mindset. I personally find them undesirable to play for a number of reasons, though I do always enjoy observing someone else's intepretation and how it interacts with the events around them. I think it's, kind of unfair when players call "foul" and point the finger at another player accusing them of bad RP the instant their half-giant does something they don't expect, as this has happened to me and I know for a fact that other players were enjoying my silly antics so it was just this one person trying to make my character conform to their expectations, which, were rather narrow. The simple fact is, the half-giant won't ALWAYS come to the wrong conclusion, though they usually will.

[Incognito]

LOL - 4th May - the 4th is strong in this thread - looks like we're getting derailed - half-elf to half-giant!

But seriously - coming back to the half-elven roleplay.....

[Revenant]

Personally, I find the quirks of breeds a lot more annoying OOC than elves, no matter what race I'm playing, especially when I'm playing a breed. At least you KNOW that necker's up to something shady, you can trust him to, be a necker. You never know when a half-elf is going to breed out on you. It makes it near impossible to like or love them because they hurt your feelings so much.

[whitt]

Derp.

[RogueGunslinger]

Elves should be treated very differently from half-elves.

Elves should instill fear, anger, resentment, and more of an us vs them mentality. People who deal with them should show mistrust but also an understanding that any dealings you have will leave you with less, and that elf with more, but there are worse options out there.

Half-elves should, when not being ignored entirely, instill disgust and revulsion. People who show them pity should be scoffed at. When dealing with them, people should be scornful, and feel like it's their only option.

And magickers should be a combination of the worst parts of both.

[chuci]

Man all those NPCs in the market must have a real rough time finding any customers, huh?

Armageddon shines when you focus on the grey areas of interaction. Otherwise it's just not fun for most people.

Racism and speciesism doesn't have to result in overblown aggression or overly negative interactions, nor does it have to result in completely hidden (think-only) reactions, hugs, or smiles.

Condescension, elitism, exclusion, mockery, jokes at their expense, paying them less than you'd offer someone else, the list goes on.

Someone can be a second class citizen without suffering daily abuse to the point where you wonder how NPCs even survive.


p.s. half giants are gullible and stupid and dumb. You're getting wrapped up in the semantics of the word stupid.

[RogueGunslinger]

 I don't think I agree at all that Armageddon shines in the gray areas of interaction, though maybe I misunderstood you point. I think it shines when you follow the documentation. Limits beget creativity, and all that.

I'd say the only time it gets ridiculous is when your elf keeps being the whipping boy for every slight a PC has ever suffered. Or when you try to be slightly rascist from the elf side of things and every person at the bar suddenly wants to make it a big deal, like there isn't half a city worth of elves who've been talking shit about them their entire life.

There are many flavors of racism and ways to interact with them though, that I totally agree on.

[chuci]

Uh. The documentation encourages grey areas. Unless it's been edited to be more stringent?

Being able to interact != hugs and smiles.

Overt hostility and avoidance stifle interaction, they don't encourage it.

I feel like there's been a big push in the game to make everything "meaner" in response to a segment of the playerbase that likes everything to be hugs, smiles, and sunshine, but the problem is going overboard with that only stifles roleplay opportunities. Or maybe people just aren't good at playing long-term conflict without defaulting to rapid escalation.

Example:
a shady back room deal with an elf that you know can get you some illicit goods on the quiet, complete with lots of haggling because you just KNOW this sharp-eared necker is ripping you off because he's got what you need = long-term interaction that follows the coda of the gameworld
avoiding the elf entirely or starting a barfight with him and trying to get him killed = brief or no interaction that just discourages that player from rolling up another elf

etc, etc, etc.

[Patuk]

Chuci, can you take a look at player announcements and apply for my elf tribe, please? I'd kind of like bringing you in.

[Revenant]

Chuci for president. Absolutely agree %100.

[RogueGunslinger]

Uh. The documentation encourages grey areas. Unless it's been edited to be more stringent?

What do you mean encourages gray areas? The documentation encourages you to follow the documentation. How you interpret that documentation is something else entirely, like Talia said before, it's not something that you should worry yourself over getting exactly right or that there's any one specific way to do things right. But it sounds like you're saying people should play in more neutral, accepting manners, while avoiding conflict for the sake of longer-lasting interaction. Which I pretty much disagree with entirely if that's what you're saying.


Edit: Basically I think you can go wrong in both directions. Too accepting/neutral/understanding. Or irrationaly conflicting for no other reason than to let off some steam under the guise of "playing to documentation"

[Armaddict]

Overt hostility and avoidance stifle interaction, they don't encourage it.

Hostility is interaction.  Interaction !=everyone survives for as long as possible.

I actually, for the most part, agree with you, but I wanted to point it out...the overt hostility isn't a reaction to hugs and smiles, it's a reaction to what has been a rather slow, but steady trend over years and years that turned this game less and less 'competitive', which results in a drastically different feel over time.  At one point, getting killed out of nowhere for your boots was an actual reality.  It was scary, and trust of other pc's was so low that the 'hunt in groups' advice was actually hard to follow.  People really would offer their help in hunting, just to insure you got far enough away from the gates.

That didn't stifle interaction.  It got people killed, though.  The assertion that this results in people not playing that role because 'shit' is based on a premise that players killing players is undesirable, which isn't true.

Again, though, for the most part, things could be handled in a way that accomplishes goals -and- allows for a more dynamic relationship between enemies, but I just wanted to point out that a simple mugger, or a cruel-bastard-mercenary who gets violently drunk, is not a bad role, or someone stifling interaction.  They're playing a role to be interacted with in a certain way.

Pretty much...I'm making sure you're not meaning what it sounds like you're meaning, as RGS said:

But it sounds like you're saying people should play in more neutral, accepting manners, while avoiding conflict for the sake of longer-lasting interaction. Which I pretty much disagree with entirely if that's what you're saying.

[HavokBlue]

I think it's worth saying that I don't think staff have an issue with players killing players. I think staff have an issue with players killing players for no other reason than to kill players, ie. a plot that results only in dead players and nothing else.

[Talia]

I think it's worth saying that I don't think staff have an issue with players killing players. I think staff have an issue with players killing players for no other reason than to kill players, ie. a plot that results only in dead players and nothing else.

I'm definitely against players killing players! But I'm 100% in favor of player-characters killing player-characters should they have an IC reason to do so.



Also, please make sure to wish up when you're about to PK, as we'd like to watch.

[HavokBlue]

You know, as I was typing that, I knew I should have specified PCs.

[chuci]

Overt hostility and avoidance stifle interaction, they don't encourage it.

Hostility is interaction.  Interaction !=everyone survives for as long as possible.

I actually, for the most part, agree with you, but I wanted to point it out...the overt hostility isn't a reaction to hugs and smiles, it's a reaction to what has been a rather slow, but steady trend over years and years that turned this game less and less 'competitive', which results in a drastically different feel over time.  At one point, getting killed out of nowhere for your boots was an actual reality.  It was scary, and trust of other pc's was so low that the 'hunt in groups' advice was actually hard to follow.  People really would offer their help in hunting, just to insure you got far enough away from the gates.

That didn't stifle interaction.  It got people killed, though.  The assertion that this results in people not playing that role because 'shit' is based on a premise that players killing players is undesirable, which isn't true.

Again, though, for the most part, things could be handled in a way that accomplishes goals -and- allows for a more dynamic relationship between enemies, but I just wanted to point out that a simple mugger, or a cruel-bastard-mercenary who gets violently drunk, is not a bad role, or someone stifling interaction.  They're playing a role to be interacted with in a certain way.

Pretty much...I'm making sure you're not meaning what it sounds like you're meaning, as RGS said:

But it sounds like you're saying people should play in more neutral, accepting manners, while avoiding conflict for the sake of longer-lasting interaction. Which I pretty much disagree with entirely if that's what you're saying.

I mostly agree with you.

10 years ago, sure, people feared for their lives a lot more - but entire cities would also be vacated because of a particularly PK-happy templar. There's a middle ground to be found, and that's my whole point.

Extreme xenophobia and hostility is not always (always, I said!) conducive to great storytelling.

There's a reason the Tan Muark got volcano bombed.

[BadSkeelz]

There's a reason the Tan Muark got volcano bombed.

Cause they were pretty and had nice things? That was enough of a reason for my PC to help with that plot. Don't really see how their firebombing is germane to a xenophobia/hostility question.

[chuci]

There's a reason the Tan Muark got volcano bombed.

Cause they were pretty and had nice things? That was enough of a reason for my PC to help with that plot. Don't really see how their firebombing is germane to a xenophobia/hostility question.

Let me rephrase that: there's OOC reasons the Tan Muark got volcano bombed.

They had a wonderful, engaging, interesting history. They were also incredibly xenophobic and isolated and self-contained.

They're better as a nomadic tribal culture. Parked in Tyn Dashra, they grew stagnant. It was also beginning to stretch the bounds of reality that they would remain unchallenged for so long.

There's this Aesops fable-style story where this guy dies and he thinks he's gone to heaven, because he wins everything all the time. It's actually hell, because he grows so bored of winning that there's no challenge and no joy left in it. So he complains about how boring it is to win all the time, and so he gets the opposite. He loses all the time. And he becomes so beaten down and discouraged by losing all the time that he begs to start winning again. And then the cycle repeats itself. Because in hell, there is no middle ground and no balance. And while Armageddon is hell in character, it's supposed to be good storytelling out of character.

Stories need winners and they need losers. They need interaction, they need conflict and they need cooperation. I'm not suggesting that we make all our interactions neutral and forgiving, that's just as boring as violence all the time every time. That's just as boring as straight-up ignoring people and being isolated all the time. What I'm suggesting is that players - and staff - make the creative effort to stop and think: "Would this make a good story? If I was reading a novel, would I be entertained by this? Does this promote interaction and enjoyable conflict or does it stifle it? Is this just me getting off on being awesome or am I contributing to a scene?"

Obviously, not all scenes need those questions. But even if you're solo roleplaying, consider what you're doing that you could make a scene or a plot hook out of, later on, with other players.

Those sorts of questions are the difference, I feel, between a good roleplayer and a great roleplayer.


... also, half-breeds are gross and pathetic.

[valeria]

This thread has veered off course.  If you want to discuss things other than half-elf roleplay, please make a new thread 

[Harmless]

 

Man all those NPCs in the market must have a real rough time finding any customers, huh?

Armageddon shines when you focus on the grey areas of interaction. Otherwise it's just not fun for most people.

Racism and speciesism doesn't have to result in overblown aggression or overly negative interactions, nor does it have to result in completely hidden (think-only) reactions, hugs, or smiles.

Condescension, elitism, exclusion, mockery, jokes at their expense, paying them less than you'd offer someone else, the list goes on.

Someone can be a second class citizen without suffering daily abuse to the point where you wonder how NPCs even survive.


p.s. half giants are gullible and stupid and dumb. You're getting wrapped up in the semantics of the word stupid.

This is a strong post on all counts and I wish more players would take it to heart.

However, there doesn't seem to be any real documentation available that discusses how "racist RP" should be. I think it might belong in "help human roleplay" because, being the most populous race, they determine the social status of other races in their cities. Yet, the helpfile for human roleplay is depressingly empty:

Human character is as broad as human ability. Virtually any sort of disposition can be found amongst humans, and humans are allowed the greatest latitude in inventing their personalities. For all intents and purposes, a human is able to become whatever he or she wishes to become, without restriction.

I wonder if this helpfile could be expanded to help players of human PCs determine how they should respond to other races. I think all the helpfile currently addresses is how humans can roleplay in the absence of non-human races, i.e. with each other.

[RogueGunslinger]

I don't really think peoples problem with representing racism is because of them being too aggressive/conflicting though, if anything I'd say it's the opposite for Dwarvers, Half-elves, and Half-giants. They're treated like humans with strength, depression, and stubbornness, instead of the different races they truly are.

I'd say Elves have some issues with people being overly aggressive for no reason, but that is not the crux of their problems or even the worst part of it. It's not something docs can fix. The worst of their problem is people knowing they have no back-up.  Nobody is afraid of fucking with elves for little to no reason because they know they will never be held accountable for their actions. When the reality is they should expect a beat-down in middle of the night by that elf's tribe, or for their apartment to be broken into have all their valuables stolen, and then shit smeared on their walls and rug and elf piss in their cot.

[wizturbo]

I'm all for hostility towards those the docs say are undesirables, but I hate that to so many people hostility = +10 on the PK meter.

Equally, I hate that insults so quickly escalate to murder plots.  PKing someone ends the conflict.  It makes the game less fun, not more fun.  I'm not saying PKing shouldn't happen, but it should happen for better reasons than "so and so called my merchant assistant a stinky butt!".  

If someone is a thieving elf, or insults your mom, try and come up with more creative ways to liven up the conflict with them than trying to kill them.   Try and get them fired.  Steal their shit.  Frame them for stealing someone elses shit.  Spread false rumors about them.  Bang their GF.  Bang their BF.  Whatever it is, PK should be step 5 on the conflict chart escalation chart, not step 1.

[Barzalene]

Equally, I hate that insults so quickly escalate to murder plots.  PKing someone ends the conflict.  It makes the game less fun, not more fun.  I'm not saying PKing shouldn't happen, but it should happen for better reasons than "so and so called my merchant assistant a stinky butt!".  

It's funny and true.

[Harmless]

That's an interesting question. I personally have never played a PC who would just do a racial cleansing murder of a breed just because they were a breed, nor one who decides that as soon as a breed looked at you the wrong way it was time to murder. But wouldn't that fit the setting to some degree? I agree jumping straight to murder isn't fun gameplay wise but it could fit, right? Of course, as soon as it were discovered someone did that, they would be determined to be a dangerous and volatile person but it isn't bannable or anything.

[HavokBlue]

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.