Is it wrong that I want to kill all of you?

[IAmJacksOpinion]

The Preface
I'm going to preface this by saying that, in about a decade of playing Arm, I've pulled maybe 12 PKs. Maybe 20 tops. And that's distributed between abusive homicidal assholes, true neutral mercenaries, and genuine good guys pushed into a corner. I usually like to play indies, keep to myself, not bother anyone, and explore. At a rate of 1-2 PKs a year, I think it's safe to say that I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a bloodthirsty player.

The Background
However, in the last 2-3 years I've been playing... there just hasn't been a lot of visible conflict. Some flairs up from time to time, to be sure. But it's nowhere near as frequent and visible as it used to be. I'm not even putting that statement up for debate - it's purely factual. It's been at least 6 months since there was a new rumor about a raider. It's been almost 2 years since there's been a sorceror around, amassing an army of rogue 'gickers. It's been about 5 years since there was a tribe of raider elves.

This may be a jaded point of view, but when I look around I see lots of powerful, long-lived PCs hell bent on getting along with one another. I honestly think there are more characters around these days with 1 or 2 IRL years played on them than I've ever seen before in my Arm career. A 2 RL years played character used to be a mythical being. Now I can name 5 off the top of my head. In a way, that's kind of a cool thing. But at the same time I long for the days when that was next to impossible to pull off. (Because there were people around who were able and willing to kill you, pretty much no matter who you were.)

The Question
So with that viewpoint established, my question is this; is it wrong that I'm feeling the urge to play conflict focused PCs? (Or the sincere wish that others would.) I'm not saying that my next 3 characters are going to be chaotic evil, smile-scarred rinthis with the names Joker, Jokur, and Jokar. I'm talking about characters with backgrounds, goals, focuses, or personalities that would lend quite naturally to conflict. An escaped slave with a chip on his shoulder. A desperate raider, willing to hold people over for a skin of water. A dwarf hell bent on taking out Templarate stoolies.

Basically is it wrong for someone to dedicate a few characters to making the world a more dangerous place? To play the villain. To set out with the goal of fucking shit up like the Step Brothers. I'd especially like to hear some staff perspective on this, as I remember an incident a couple of years ago where I rolled up a Tuluki dwarf whose focus was to kill magickers, and was declined with a reason stating either "we don't allow focuses that are designed as an excuse to PK" or "all focuses must involve fluffy kittens." I don't remember which, and honestly can't tell the difference.


Addressing the opposition (Jack's a Mindworm!)

Before we begin, I just want to try address a few sure-fire opposition topics that I consider to be somewhat beside the point of what I'm asking.

Just because you don't see the conflict, doesn't mean it's not there.
We get it - you watch Game of Thrones. I'm not saying that the conflict isn't there, I'm saying yes, I want to SEE the conflict. I want it to be a visceral part of the game again. I want my hands to tremble over the keys, barely able to type as I proceed through a scene that can only end one of two ways. That's the Armageddon experience I once fell in love with. Not the indie merchant clan simulator I'm currently seeing.

Ur going 2 make every1 b twinks!
Nope. I want well played characters with motive and balls. I want to feel these scenes. I want the Hound to come into the bar and eat all my fucking chickens. For the sake of this question, lets pretend that all of the conflict I'm advocating will be warranted. It will be a raid where the victim chose the "or else" option. It will be a dispute that leads to threats that leads to both players agreeing to meet outside the gates at dawn. If you would like to discuss good or bad raiding tactics, there are many threads that have done that. Rez one, or start a new one.

Killing people doesn't add to the game. Why not try to build stuff?
My thesis states that there are enough people doing that already, and not enough players actually adding to the danger aspect of the game.
And, as always,

[Majikal]

I agree, 100 percent. Too may do-good heroes and not enough grit. Too many players would rather sit around and mudsex or spawn conflict around... mudsex. I've been disappointed in the conflict ig for awhile now and it's disheartening to even attempt to be a baddy in a world full of hero-minded folks. Ya buncha tree huggin pussies.

[MeTekillot]

do it. i will fuck you up. and if you fuck me up, i'll roll a character that will help you do the fucking up of others.

[Synthesis]

It's hard to be a bad guy.  You tend to die early, and die often.

The CGP and skill branching systems reward people who don't do that.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

It's hard to be a bad guy.  You tend to die early, and die often.

The CGP and skill branching systems rewards people who don't do that.

Totally agree. Especially in the current climate. It hasn't been a year quite yet, but the last player I personally saw go out of his way to cause small conflicts on a large scale was brought down by no less than a combined effort from The Legionaire, House Kurac, and the Byn. All that for what was probably a 5 day warrior... yeah...

The unfortunate side of the situation is that you can either do it effectively, or you can do it in a way that not everyone will be mad at. You could easily roll up a you-know-what mage and gank everyone you happen to come across, and then some you don't. But that would be lame for all parties involved, and pretty unfulfilling to boot. On the other hand if you go with something "fair" like a ranger, you'd need dump at least 10 days played into it, and even then you would only be menacing to newbie salt grebbers. Also, not the desired effect.

do it. i will fuck you up. and if you fuck me up, i'll roll a character that will help you do the fucking up of others.

[SuchDragonWow]

I feel like this is a needed conversation, if at least because I've been attempting to play a downright scoundrel and an obvious, crude, sometimes-funny-but-mostly-asshole asshole.  I've had to dial down the asshole and turn up the funny just to reasonably get by.  It's worth a consideration, I think.

[BadSkeelz]

I wonder if it's coincidental that the "Age of long-lived PCs" started (apparently) at about the same time that Whirans were bumped from a 4 karma to a 6 karma class. I suspect it isn't. Whirans certainly seemed to be the top predator for killing off long-lived PCs, albeit in one of the derpiest ways possible.

What I'm trying to say is, killing long-lived PCs is kind of tough. Much tougher than it is for them to kill you right back. So not only does it take varying levels of contrivance for wanting them dead, it takes a lot of work to acquire the ability to see them dead.

[Talia]

I'd say we have anywhere between 5 and 10 PKs per week on a regular basis. Looks like in the 5 to 7 range over the past week, based on runlogs and PK reports. Is that not enough? That's around 2 to 4% of PCs dying to other PCs per week; or around 10% per RL month on the conservative side of the estimate.

[BadSkeelz]

One long-lived character PK is worth ten 2-day chalton-booted-scrub PKs. No one misses them. Leave characters alive too long and the game calcifies around them.

[SuchDragonWow]

I'd say we have anywhere between 5 and 10 PKs per week on a regular basis. Looks like in the 5 to 7 range over the past week, based on runlogs and PK reports. Is that not enough? That's around 2 to 4% of PCs dying to other PCs per week; or around 10% per RL month on the conservative side of the estimate.

That's actually really impressive.  If we all do our part, who knows what we can accomplish!

[MeTekillot]

How many PKs a week that don't happen in the 'rinth, though?

[TheWanderer]

"bring it on, bitch" was only acceptable answer. i'll be at the span, m8.

[Talia]

How many PKs a week that don't happen in the 'rinth, though?

The 'rinth sees its share, but so does the wilderness, and apartments, and jail cells, and clan compounds. This past week's PKs took place in a variety of areas.

[BadSkeelz]

"bring it on, bitch" was only acceptable answer. i'll be at the span, m8.

Yeah, my bad. I'm the one.

I wish combat wasn't such a grind. I'd be more more willing to engage in warmurder then.

[Kismetic]

I'd be more more willing to engage in warmurder then.

Make sure you pack a lunch.

[Mordiggian]

Lots of people want to play antagonists, but they don't want to play antagonists.

[MeTekillot]

A lot of people want to play antagonists, but not play antagonistic characters.

[BadSkeelz]

I'll be honest and say I really prefer unleashing anger and hatred and RIPANDTEAR emotes on NPCs. PVP runs too high a risk of getting personal.

Edit: plus I've never had an NPC turn down consent for being slowly eviscerated.

[seidhr]

I'd like to see more PKs that aren't the goodie brigade murdering off someone who is trying to be the bad guy (like what you're talking about doing)

I don't think it's wrong to create a character with the mindset and background that will cause conflict, but I do think that making a character specifically for the reason of going out and killing other players is bad, because that's an OOC motive.

The dwarf with the focus of killing magickers is a grey area.  

[Is Friday]

Lots of people want to play antagonists, but they don't want to play antagonists.

p.s. I'm on break from antagonist play for now. I've been doing that for 2 years.

[Talia]

My general sense of PKs is that you're a lot more at risk if you're an annoying, useless asshole. If you're not an annoying asshole, or if you're a useful asshole, then you're likely to live. It's rare that a PK happens while I'm on the port and watching that I don't say, "Yep, that dude/ette had it coming."

I find that the biggest barrier to long-term, interesting conflict that ends in murder is that a lot of PCs just disappear into the desert. It's so sad to make someone your new #1 enemy and then never get to see/kill them. Making an enemy is more of a commitment than making a sex partner.

[BadSkeelz]

Turn off crimcode in the cities. You'll see "Enemy>PK" turnaround reach levels similar to "look>mudsex".

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I'd love a crim code that worked only on the eye-sight range of the nearest soldier NPC, and that only soldier NPCs that could see you would even be part of that code. So if it is night and a soldier is in the next room, they're coming, but if he's two rooms away, he's not, and during the day, if that soldier is three rooms away, he's coming, but if it's four, he's not. If he loses sight of you while running you down, he's out of the mix. Any soldier he ran past while chasing you also chases you.

[whitt]

Making an enemy is more of a commitment than making a sex partner.

This too.  Everyone wants an enemy.  Present yourself as wanting to be one and you'll have lots of takers.  Doesn't tend to equate to a long life.  Unless you have a crew backing you.

[Clearsighted]

How many PKs a week that don't happen in the 'rinth, though?

The 'rinth sees its share, but so does the wilderness, and apartments, and jail cells, and clan compounds. This past week's PKs took place in a variety of areas.

I can handle the 'rinth or the wilderness. Apartments, jail cells and clan compounds terrify me. Those by far, seem to see a higher rate of PKs vs the first two. (Not counting 3 hour newbs).