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

[Clearsighted]

But what we don't see, is any highly successful non-clan and non-gicker raiders. It's something I've given a lot of thought to, to how to get around. I'm not going to get into it here, but it's hard to not reiterate these points. I think there's a lot of unrealistic talk in this thread about the PC raiding experience.

What's your definition of 'highly successful'?  Because again, pretty sure you're wrong again, this time against characters of my own.  If think they should all reach bushman-levels of fame to be successful raiders, theeeennnn...I'd say your problem is your bar being set too high.

Quite the strawman there. I expect what most people regard as highly succesful, whether a raider or anything else, is to be able to carry out the intended role and persist long enough to have actually played the role, as opposed to raiding once and then dying of the consequences within a week which is what seems to be the norm. When I ask around, nobody can tell me about a succesful raider since "back in the day."

Fergie pretty much nails it. But to more directly answer your query, Arm, I don't set the bar at 'Bushman' levels.

I set the bar at any mundane raiding band attaining any kind of notoriety and continuity at all, and who wouldn't be immediately smashed by any couple of indie GMH hunters that happened to find them in the wastes. In fact, my baseline for being 'highly successful' is extremely modest: If any significant individual, whether GMH/delf hunters or Byn patrol, has ever thought twice about entering your territory...Then you are successful.

If a semi-decent fighter has ever heard you were about, and their first reaction was to head to the gates, and not to get a huge, excited hard-on at the prospect of killing the local raider - then you have been successful. I applaud your raiding attempts, but I don't think you, or the fellow that Narf mentioned, qualify under even these lenient terms. Because loners typically can't manage this, unless they're gickers. They need allies.

Gicker outlaws tend to accumulate and bind to each other like fungus. They have a lot of mutual influences pushing them together. Mundane raiders don't have that same attraction. It's just very hard to skill up a mundane character on one's own, and without even a place to safely spar, and it's nigh impossible to find several like-minded people who can manage that, who don't join more secure and supported clans. This is why, in the last ten to fifteen years, it's only happened once or twice to any meaningful extent. Where it has happened, has required borderline cheating levels of OOC coordination and familiarity among players.

A possible solution might be to designate an outpost in the world, like the mul outpost or Red Storm East, or something similar, and give it a more obvious 'bad' reputation, like a wasteland version of the 'rinth with no crime code. But obviously, NPCs that will defend themselves. If people start out there, then they can be mutually considered beyond the pale of civilization, and have that mutual background/understanding, like a pirate city in the past. I don't think Red Storm qualifies, since it's basically become the Allanaki Hamptons.

[Clearsighted]

Mundane raiders are kind've like Fermi paradox. There might be trillions of stars and galaxies out there, which inevitably means that some life will appear - but they exist, and then snuff out, like sparks of light. Life never happens at the same time or proximity, allowing two intelligent civilizations to interact. They make a little trouble, and then they get crushed. There's no opportunity for say, Arm's raider, and Narf's anecdotal raider, to get together and cooperate.

Gickers are a bit different, since virtually every gicker, that doesn't have a dull black gem, and who isn't an elf, is already in an outlaw mindset. That gives them an unspoken commonality. There are exceptions, but these characters, if long-lived, tend to coalesce into sizeable and extremely dangerous groups.

[solera]

Red Storm. I don't know what Hamptons are, but Change It. 

[Clearsighted]

Red Storm. I don't know what Hamptons are, but Change It.  

Problem with Red Storm is that it can't be changed. It functions more or less like Allanak. Gates open at dawn. Gates close at dusk. It has an insane level of extremely dangerous NPC guards (many of them hidden) crowded inside. If you're in Storm, and you're not in an alley, you best be watching yourself. It's easier to do bad things in Allanak, ironically enough.

What I'd like to see is an outpost that's effectively the wasteland version of the 'rinth. There'd be just barely enough infrastructure for people to start there, but it would definitely have its own seedy, lawless culture.

[Armaddict]

Red Storm. I don't know what Hamptons are, but Change It.  

Problem with Red Storm is that it can't be changed. It functions more or less like Allanak. Gates open at dawn. Gates close at dusk. It has an insane level of extremely dangerous NPC guards (many of them hidden) crowded inside. If you're in Storm, and you're not in an alley, you best be watching yourself. It's easier to do bad things in Allanak, ironically enough.

What I'd like to see is an outpost that's effectively the wasteland version of the 'rinth. There'd be just barely enough infrastructure for people to start there, but it would definitely have its own seedy, lawless culture.

Populate the mul outpost!

As far as the successful raider.  I guess that's just relative.  I've felt pretty successful with some of mine, but I suppose that's what the issue is.  You want more out of the character.  I don't build raiders to make a big name, I build raiders to try and bring the danger of the world to as many people who disrespect it or haven't experienced it as possible.  Funnily enough, most of my raiders do -not- die to other pc's.  They die to beasts or...stupidity, because Zalanthas kills people.

[James de Monet]

I disagree that there haven't been any successful raiders in 10 years.

If you have heard of any group, they were probably successful on your scale, because you don't tend to hear about them until they've raided at least a number of individuals or groups.

And even if you haven't heard of them, that doesn't mean they don't exist.  I've heard of a few that seemed worthy of note.

[Clearsighted]

Red Storm. I don't know what Hamptons are, but Change It.  

Problem with Red Storm is that it can't be changed. It functions more or less like Allanak. Gates open at dawn. Gates close at dusk. It has an insane level of extremely dangerous NPC guards (many of them hidden) crowded inside. If you're in Storm, and you're not in an alley, you best be watching yourself. It's easier to do bad things in Allanak, ironically enough.

What I'd like to see is an outpost that's effectively the wasteland version of the 'rinth. There'd be just barely enough infrastructure for people to start there, but it would definitely have its own seedy, lawless culture.

Populate the mul outpost!

As far as the successful raider.  I guess that's just relative.  I've felt pretty successful with some of mine, but I suppose that's what the issue is.  You want more out of the character.  I don't build raiders to make a big name, I build raiders to try and bring the danger of the world to as many people who disrespect it or haven't experienced it as possible.  Funnily enough, most of my raiders do -not- die to other pc's.  They die to beasts or...stupidity, because Zalanthas kills people.

That's my great dream, for my next character. Which might be awhile. My current one is a blast.

I disagree that there haven't been any successful raiders in 10 years.

If you have heard of any group, they were probably successful on your scale, because you don't tend to hear about them until they've raided at least a number of individuals or groups.

And even if you haven't heard of them, that doesn't mean they don't exist.  I've heard of a few that seemed worthy of note.

There's been successful groups, but they fall outside my arbitrary definitions, which revolve around how mundane they are, how organically they came about, and how feared they were.

In the end, it's just my opinion. I do intend to do something about it, eventually.

After all, we all have different definitions of success. My definition of success is making people fearful of entering a certain territory, and even paying tribute for the right to operate there, without being a sorcerer or a whiran. If a group of mundane raiders could get a tribe or a GMH to bribe them to behave, I'd consider them extremely successful.

[Eyeball]

The Red Fangs succeeded because they had a clan infrastructure. You could app into the Red Fangs, and be slotted into the action. A lot of them would die, but the most badass would live, and then mentor new Fangs.

I figured they succeeded because they were utterly undetectable with the right gear, could one-shot their targets from three rooms away, could run forever in the desert, and always had moved their base camp by the time some response could be organized. I.e. enormous coded advantages.

[Clearsighted]

The Red Fangs succeeded because they had a clan infrastructure. You could app into the Red Fangs, and be slotted into the action. A lot of them would die, but the most badass would live, and then mentor new Fangs.

I figured they succeeded because they were utterly undetectable with the right gear, could one-shot their targets from three rooms away, could run forever in the desert, and always had moved their base camp by the time some response could be organized. I.e. enormous coded advantages.

Well. You've basically described all desert elves and GMH rangers with decent mounts and bows. None of what you described is unique to the RFs, and one could get into various debates regarding mounted rangers vs delf rangers, and have pros/cons for each. Nothing is safer than a city to return to, and GMHs had bases in every city.

What made the Red Fangs effective, despite their enormous turnovers and fatality rates, was new players being able to apply into the clan, having that instant kinship, and then the cream of the crop surviving and rising to the top. Sort've like the T'zai Byn, except the cream doesn't plunge to its death on a regular basis.

I could have a Red Fang die, go play something else for a while, then come back and app another Red Fang, and slot right in. That's a powerful cultural and organizational advantage, and far exceeded any coded advantage (of which there was none, that were unique to RFs).

EDIT: And from what I recall, by far the best gear that RFs had access to was that stolen/bought from other tribes/clans, like the Sun Runners, etc. This was before mastercraft submissions were a real thing.

[Rhyden]

Is it wrong that I want to chop up mufuckaz with obsidian longswords sometimes instead of bone longswords?

[John]

PCs don't kill long-lived PCs. NPCs do.

This has not been my experience circa 2002-2006.

I don't really get the animosity towards player driven conflict. Murder. Betrayal.  Corruption. IMO 90% of the populace should be striving to include this as part of their characters' lives every single day. If I'm understanding people correctly dismissing that as Total Allanak Drama seems antithetical to the game. I don't know if this resistance is an artifact of Tuluk being closed, but I was always under the impression that Tuluk had these things as well.

Banding together to face a common threat shouldn't be SOP. If you hear about someone being threatened by danger X your first thought should be "how can I take advantage of this situation" not "Let us form the Light Brigade for the greater good and defeat this threat so that we may all live in harmony."

Apologies if I've misunderstood people's points.

I don't know if I agree with purposefully dosing your play with MCB(maybe a little bit is fine).  I like it to happen as a natural byproduct of decisions in a plot, because you actually want to succeed in your goals enough to do so.  Not like "Okay, how can I corrupt someone today?"  It becomes very comic book and inauthentic.

See my subsequent posts that explain what I mean.

[Barzalene]

Is it wrong that I want to chop up mufuckaz with obsidian longswords sometimes instead of bone longswords?

That's a really complicated question and impossible to answer on the GDB as many factors contribute to the answer. Also, find out ic.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

I didn't mean to sound like I was touting raiding as the silver bullet that was going to cure this stagnation that has settled upon the game (henceforth referred to as "Arm with Friends") in the last few years. But the absence of any real player-vs-player danger is definitely felt these days.

I certainly agree that good PvP is what we need, not just senseless killing. If I thought senseless killing was fun, I wouldn't have bothered making this post. I would have rolled up a string of "hulking" 4 foot tall buttfuck dwarves (jumping off the Shield Wall until I got an AI) and proceeded to slab every salt grebber in sight. Hell, with my frequent breaks and sporadic playtimes, I could probably make a decent go of this guy too! But that's not really appealing to me. I try to bring the grittiness and meanness into my characters, but it takes a more willing and risk-taking player base than what I currently see looking around to reciprocate. You won't believe how many of these scrubs will act tough and threaten you... but then never follow through. Never agree to "take it out side."

I would love to see some outlaw groups form, but as others have said that's unlikely to happen for a number of reasons:

• Arm with Friends has seen a drastic reduction in quit/save rooms out in the far-flung desert. I believe it was in an effort to congregate the hugging-base. At any rate, if you're not a ranger you're going to have a hard time finding places to log off.
• While Armageddon used to favor groups with some measure of support from time to time, in Arm with Friends 12 people with 100 hours of logs couldn't manage a decently stacked pile of rocks without the arrange command. (Know the copper mines? Before there was copper there it was a sekret raiding HQ.) I guess you could try making a raiding merchant house though.
• The bored and untested masses would race off to kill you at the first sign of a ripple in the stagnant pool of Arm with Friends. You'd have a fifty-day warrior after you, anxious to get his first taste of non-mob combat almost before you had your first set of boots sold.
• Having chopped down Sorcerors in favor of the mini-sorc extended subs, the game has lost the one class that is actually capable of standing against the world, as it were. Don't get me wrong, the mini-sorc subs seem awesome, but nothing could compare the sorceror in terms of being an effective villain that didn't necessarily have to cheat or kill everyone they cross just to stay alive.

BadSkeels, I would agree with you that some of the plots the imms can cook up and run are much more interesting than the PvP friction we, as players, can manage. You keep mentioning how awesome that spider plot was two years ago. That plot... two years ago...  The problem with PvImm is the long months between them. Also, a PvImm plotline can really only involve a handful of PCs. So, when an army of Mantis shows up at the west gate it's a great time to be had by the AOD and the Byn, but where does that leave the GMH clannies? The rinthis? The unaffiliated commoners? The tavern sitter brigade? Sure, in times of great peril they could all probably willingly volunteer, but very often plots are only for a particular clan. One of my favorite RPTs in recent memory was the Jade Cross raid. Amazingly fun meat grinder. Added so much depth to my character. But it involved... the Byn. And only the Byn. The AOD didn't even come along to take out a raider camp a short ride from the gates.

[BadSkeelz]

I always bring up the spider plot because it's a favorite of mine and most every other ImmPlot I've done has been a little too recent (1-2 years) that I can't quite talk about the character involved freely yet.

For the Jade Cross thing, I'd have to check back why the AoD wasn't in at the kill. I think it had a lot to do with scheduling, and the fact that a bunch of soldiers had recently gotten killed in some pretty inane MCB action. No clan, no action.

I will disagree with you on Imm plots having a limited number of participants. You involve the militia, the Byn, and potentially a Noble or Merchant house and you're looking at a dozen people easily. A lot more than what I typically see involved directly in PVP plots, which are usually just three or four knuckleheads throwing knives at each other.

For your concern that ImmPlots don't involve "the GMH, rinthis, unaffiliated, and tavern sitters", the best way of counter-acting that is for the plot to threaten them. Random PCs getting attacked in the streets, threats to multiple spheres of influence. It's been my experience that PCs start fighting amongst themselves when they're bored. Why are they bored? Because the gameworld is pretty damn safe once you learn the big Danger Zones. ImmPlots have the advantage of catching the playerbase off guard. You might think you're safe in a tavern until someone lobs a grenade in.

Would I love to see more events of that scale be purely player driven? Sure. But with the structure of the  gameworld (even sponsored-role PCs are "nobodies") and the game itself limiting how much players can accomplish, these big interesting plots are dependent on staff support or staff initiative. I like to build up a character for them, collecting friends, scars and enemies in the meantime. Not sacrifice myself at the altar of MCB after the first instance of UNFORGIVABLE INSULT from someone.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

Okay, what the hell is MCB? I keep seeing the acronym in this post, and some others.

[bcw81]

For the Jade Cross thing, I'd have to check back why the AoD wasn't in at the kill. I think it had a lot to do with scheduling, and the fact that a bunch of soldiers had recently gotten killed in some pretty inane MCB action. No clan, no action.

AoD wasn't a part of the Jade Crosses RPT because the Byn sergeant at the time didn't want people moving in on his kill. Also there were about 30 fucking runners that needed to die.

[Marauder Moe]

Okay, what the hell is MCB? I keep seeing the acronym in this post, and some others.

[BadSkeelz]

AoD wasn't a part of the Jade Crosses RPT because the Byn sergeant at the time didn't want people moving in on his kill. Also there were about 30 fucking runners that needed to die.

Ah, gotcha. Which suited me fine as an AoD leader: didn't have much of a clan and was happy to farm out some fun to another group of PCs. I'd also just recently killed one of the Jade Cross Raiders in city (and a kid who got in the crossfire) so I was feeling magnanimous.

Okay, what the hell is MCB? I keep seeing the acronym in this post, and some others.

I assumed it's "Murder Corruption Betrayal" but that's a guess on my part.

[Talia]

BadSkeels, I would agree with you that some of the plots the imms can cook up and run are much more interesting than the PvP friction we, as players, can manage. You keep mentioning how awesome that spider plot was two years ago. That plot... two years ago...  The problem with PvImm is the long months between them.

Running plots is an incredibly intensive use of staff time. I cannot over-stress how taxing it is on staff time and stamina. I finished running a big plot at the end of May and I am still tired and not yet ready to contemplate another big plot. In between staff-run plots, players have to do their part.

Not to mention, in the middle of a big plot it is difficult to get any other game work done. Plots are great but that's not everything we're working on. We have to make choices.

Also, a PvImm plotline can really only involve a handful of PCs. So, when an army of Mantis shows up at the west gate it's a great time to be had by the AOD and the Byn, but where does that leave the GMH clannies? The rinthis? The unaffiliated commoners? The tavern sitter brigade?

We actually make significant efforts to involve various clans in big plots, if the plots are planned to be regional or inter-clan. But it is not completely up to staff to make sure that players get involved--we frequently encounter players who outright refuse to become involved or to involve other PCs in their clans. (The most common manifestation of this is, "Shh, Amos, don't tell anyone about what we just saw! Keep it between us, we'll do nothing, and it will go away!) There's really nothing we can do about that.

Sometimes we do run plots that are mostly focused on a single clan. Even those tend to have spillover effects.

[Revenant]

Ok, personally, I think I agree with Case, and this doesn't happen often, but also, Badskillz. The trouble, imo, is that too many people are "playing to win" and PKing at the first sign of inconvenience, this means, no escalation of tension, no plot developement, no possibility of negotiation or for one party to back off, and no story left over afterwards, because, if there were clues then what really happened may be discovered, and that's not how you "play to win". While I agree, there is definitely a place for "Murder, corruption, betrayal", as someone said earlier, if you're going to OOCly motivate your character to engage in these acts at every available opportunity, like some dwarf with a focus, then are you really playing you character as believably as possible? Or is it simply a machine designed to carry out the game's tagline? It's the latter I have an issue with.

It's ever been my experience that one needn't look far for conflict, indeed, if you are engaging anyone, anyone at all, even in innocent conversation, it will come to you. What happens next is crucial to story development, and sadly, requires some trust between the anonymous parties involved that they will both play their characters in a believable fashion, and consider the overall storyline more important than this one instance, and their character specifically. If there isn't that degree of unspoken trust between you and the other player, then you need to quickly assess "How important are my character's contributions to the plotlines of others?", and if they're "More than that lazy jackhole over there.", then you really have little option than to strike fast, and first. I've payed for trying to give people the benefit of the doubt before. It's just not worth it, despite the potential for fun and interesting conflict, it all too often boils down to, as Badskillz said, four or five knuckleheads hurling knives at eachother.

As someone else said, if we want to see more conflict happen in game, then the risk/reward ratio needs to be adjusted. It takes so long to develop a character's coded skill to anywhere near passable, that even when you have the skills, -especially- once you've put the work in, engaging in any sort of risky behavior quickly slides down the steeply tilted risk/reward scale and off the table, so, little happens. And, as characters live longer, amass more influence, especially if they're clanned, they become more and more difficult to engage in any sort of conflict with, particularly because the whole assessment of both players as to whose PC is driving more plotlines and engaging more people becomes even more skewed, and unless something drastic happens to pick that steaming mess back up off the floor, ham-fistedly yank the scales down and plop it back down, it's not going to happen, at least, not between players.

I don't really understand the desire to participate in meaningless, or particularly detrimental PK. After all, if you take the easy kill, where's the thrill of the hunt? That's like some power levelled ten year old camping the newbie quest areas and spawn points to indulge their own ego, probably because they can't hold their own, even in mass, against a similarly strong opponent who can actually Play The Game. You'd think it'd get old after a while, but there are some players who do exactly this, thankfully, I don't think many last long on Arm, and for that, I'm grateful.

[ibusoe]

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.

Thank you for taking the time to organize this post.  Your ideas and your writing were logically constructed and clearly explained.  It seems to have stimulated any number of other interesting points to be brought up.

I would like to point something out - that part of what your observing now as a problem is the evolution from a game where *all* conflict was lethal.  If someone was bothering you, you simply killed them or had them killed.  You didn't want to take the chance that they'd retaliate against you, so you wiped them out.  

In one case I had a character PK'd by Kurac because my character was seen having an ale with the wrong person.  That sort of thing is not really bad enough for me to cry foul, but it really reduces my interest in having further conflicts with these players.

The way the game is now, there is a *lot* more conflict, but it's usually more personal, and usually nonlethal.  It's a lot easier to ignite conflict because you don't necessarily have to worry about loosing your character.  That possibility still exists, but fortunately many other beautiful and diverse options are now on the table for ruining someone's day.

Yeah, I've been raided once, had my ENTIRE INVENTORY cleaned out by pickpockets twice, and had noobs try to kite aggro mobs to me twice...all in the last month or so.

Yeah, I'm with Synthesis on this.  In recent memory, I was PK'd by desert elves, PK'd in my clan compound, died while collecting intel/recon/spying, pickpocketed, burglarized twice, bullied (twice), insulted, belittled, threatened, shaken down, robbed by my clan leader, kicked out of my tribe, jumped by an ungemmed, and treated to any amount of abuse based on my character's race and ugliness.  I'm surprised anyone thinks the game could be harder than this.  I just didn't want to seem contradictory.

I think part of the phenomenon of more long-lived PCs around can be attributed to an aging player base. I play more cautiously than I used to because I have become better at assessing risk. Or maybe I've just mellowed out, I don't know.

Yeah.  Actually, the reason why I pretty much never PK is because the way the combat code is, the only people you can reliably PK are noobs, and I'm not satisfied that this adds much to the game.  Instead, I try to seek out other *players* that I like, and then rob, abuse, bully and strong-arm their characters.  And then I switch sides.

It should be bad roleplay for a templar or soldiers, to give a shit about you being raided, unless you are Highborn, or possibly GMH family.

I disagree.  I don't think that any Templar wants to be seen as weak or ineffectual.  So Joe the obsidian miner gets robbed?  No problem, you'll look into it.  
So you have a unit of troops make a loop around the Outer Circle to look for elves or whatever.  You don't want to be seen as doing nothing.  But because you're a corrupt Templar, you've already embezzled half of your military budget so you don't have any money to pay the soldiers over-time.  And because you're corrupt, you're not really monitoring your soldiers that carefully, and they're probably doing a shitty job.  They either catch nobody or they pin the entire thing on some elf that they don't like.  The elf is paraded around the commons to a jeering crowd for maximum political effect, before the soldiers strip the elf, beat the elf and then quietly toss him into an ally.  The elf pick-pockets one of the soldiers in the process and ends up thinking that he's got the better of them.
Problem solved, no?

Armageddon used to have a lot of conflict-driven clan vs clan, or tribe vs drive competition. The most obvious example was Allanak vs Tuluk. But there were the Red Fangs, and others. Armageddon doesn't have that anymore. Clans/tribes also provide an infrastructure for potential antagonists. It's not like, invest 10 days in a loner ranger, raid one person, then get fucked. You got a support network.

Yeah.  But as the staff have alluded, it was actually players who shut a lot of this down.  I disagree with (Talia?) that players nuked all of the malicious actors our of spite.  I think the players that did this, did it out of a lack of restraint.

Too many players are activist players.  You have to be really careful about nuking an entire clan.  Stomping out a criminal gang, even if it's something that your character wants to do, shouldn't be something that you as a player want to do.  If you want to play a crime-fighting character, it's probably better to play an impotent or incompetent crime-fighting character.

If you really want to play a competent crime fighter, then make sure that you let the Joker get away by the skin of his teeth.  All of the other players *know* that you could have caught the Joker, but we're all much happier with you throwing the baby fish back so that you'll have something else to chase some other day.

EDIT:  Wanted to add that I agree with people that it's too hard to play a raider.  I think this is something better left to NPC anyway, which isn't my way of discouraging people from playing raiders.  Rather, I think players should mostly be playing cut-throats, outlaws, spies, lawmen, warlords, gangsters and soldiers.  The whole raider thing requires too much effort for a role that's bound to be isolated anyway.  NPC can raid people just fine.  The difference between a tarantula and a raider, at the end of the day is that a raider is a tarantula with slightly better targeting ability.  Staff should be playing these roles ....perhaps occasionally supplementing their ranks with privateers and mercenaries. 

[Revenant]

Also, I agree with Ibusoe, IAmJacksOpinion, thanks for starting this thread, as it seems to have spawned a conversation debating the subtleties and appropriateness of certain actions, which, it would be nice if people could clarify and expend upon what, exactly, is considered good or poor form. Expecting  PK not to happen is definitely unrealistic, given the setting, but I think a lot of the perception of harshness is subject to debate, and that potentially, some have different viewpoints on just how much is necessary to facilitate immersion in the setting, how much is too much, and how much is not enough. How much of this is up to the players to enforce? I'd say it's fine/maybe a tad too much where it is now, but this is my opinion.

I know in the glory hack and slash days of old, PKing was much more common. As I seem to find myself simply repeating what others have said, I feel no need to cease such practice now... I agree that, arguably, the game has evolved, not devolved, and that movement in a certain direction isn't necessarily the decay of the old, but the growth of the new. Will there be growing pains? Yes, there always is. There may be things that all of us have trouble accepting from time to time, this doesn't mean that we're wrong, or the ones disagreeing with us are wrong, but simply that there is room, and need for, meaningful discussion of the topic. I can't wait to see what more is said on the matter, and look forward to the questions it causes me to ask myself.

[Armaddict]

While the wording often gets skewed in the flow of the discussion...I think some of the pro-PK points were more directed not towards 'Everyone should kill more', but 'Everyone should allow killing more'.  I can understand what you say about the movement of the game, Rev, but I will argue very directly with the idea that the game population, as a whole, should frown on conflict ending in death, and even moreso against IC actions taken of uninvolved parties banding together to right the perceived wrongs of someone who deigned to try to kill someone else.

That is, in effect, I think the basis of the pro-pk discussion.  It's allowed, it's viable, it's reasonable, and it is not a detriment to the game like people keep asserting it is.  It's fine for there to be long, non-death-inducing conflicts.  But some of them -do- escalate.  Some people -do- survive off of someone else's lack of survival.  And that's just the way -that- world works, even if the one we, the players, live in, sees that as injustice.

[Barzalene]

I'm just always disappointed when no one tries to kill my pcs. It makes me feel like I'm being too bland.

[Revenant]

While the wording often gets skewed in the flow of the discussion...I think some of the pro-PK points were more directed not towards 'Everyone should kill more', but 'Everyone should allow killing more'.  I can understand what you say about the movement of the game, Rev, but I will argue very directly with the idea that the game population, as a whole, should frown on conflict ending in death, and even moreso against IC actions taken of uninvolved parties banding together to right the perceived wrongs of someone who deigned to try to kill someone else.

That is, in effect, I think the basis of the pro-pk discussion.  It's allowed, it's viable, it's reasonable, and it is not a detriment to the game like people keep asserting it is.  It's fine for there to be long, non-death-inducing conflicts.  But some of them -do- escalate.  Some people -do- survive off of someone else's lack of survival.  And that's just the way -that- world works, even if the one we, the players, live in, sees that as injustice.

Yeah, it's allowed, but as it's been put to me, "Just because you -can-, doesn't mean you -should-."

I mean, I'm the last one to PK anyone, I try not to interfere too much in the plots of others, more of a wait, see, and keep to myself sort, usually. Why am I not allowed to roll a rogue Krathi/Drovian? Too much power, can't be trusted... yeah, like I'm going to roll in and just blow up the Gaj one day.

I recall, a situation a couple or few years back, where, for mysterious reasons I really do not understand, my nobody breed salter assassin/hunter (not entirely a nobody, he had his little, self-involved plots going on that were enjoyable to me and those involved) was ambushed out on the salt, by a rogue whiran. Why? I never figured that out, I escaped, without getting a look at my attacker. This would have been fine, had I not been pursued into a tavern and repeatedly assaulted, despite the virtual and NPC Templar situation. This went on for hours. I won't go into the specifics because that may be revealing a bit too much about the powers a whiran possesses. Still, it was highly disrespectful of the virtual environment and indicative of a problematic, and wholly uncalled for, and irrationally and suicidally pursuing mind-set. I sent in a report about that. Luckily, my PC survived, but never was answered the "why" of it all.

I only wish this were an isolated incident, and it's all the more shocking that it involved a player with the amount of "staff trust" to play such a guild, but it happens far more often than I'd care, or be able to, admit. And I'M the one that's going to blow up a Byn warband? Please. Consider my trust in players thoroughly damaged. So yes, I'm not, by any means, pro-PK. I'm also not anti-PK, I'm just saying, within reason, and with moderation, forethought, and introspection, yeah, corrupt, betray and murder those fuckers. But, think of the kittens.

Further, who are you to decide who's "uninvolved"? If you just go kill some random jerkwad and it's witnessed, and a lynch-mob forms, maybe there's a number of things you should have learned about your target before killing them, but decided "corruption murder betrayal, derp" *ding*, because obviously the mob weren't "uninvolved", despite outward appearances (although, I'm sure this, too, happens from time to time, and I'd say, when truly "uninvolved" parties do get "involved", it's OOCly motivated, but lets not kid ourselves, a lot of players have their PCs do things all the time that are OOCly motivated, stamping THAT out, I've found, is practically impossible). Yes, conflict ending in death is a very serious part of the game, but undue escalation, just cranking that shit up to 11 at the slightest provocation, is not really beneficial to the situation, nor is it in line with the idea of "self-preservation", but I see it all the time.

There ARE players that just want to be left alone, attempt to do as little as possible to provoke anyone, and to make amends when it's beneficial to them. This is just good RP, as it shows a sense of self-preservation, as Zalanthans, according to the docs, are highly opposed to the idea of suicide... still, there are other players, that, for whatever reason, feel the need to either step down from their station, or out of their element, to get involved in something that, quite frankly, is not a concern of theirs, and proceed to wreck things in the name of "murder, corruption, and betrayal", which, is an OOC concept, meant to encourage a certain kind of play, but not necessarily to be a mantra for every, single, interaction you might have. If it were up to me, I'd yank the banner down, because I think it encourages a very OOC approach to the situations found IG, when over-simplified and taken at a higher priority level than the well-written and thought out documents themselves that go in depth into what, exactly, the setting is. Am I without flaw, when it comes to following the documents to the letter? No, but I like to think I carefully weigh my priorities, and my character's priorities, before deciding on what course of action my character chooses.

Neither karma nor the three word motto are anywhere near the top of my list. Creating a believable, fleshed-out character and having them engage in a multi-player, multi-faceted, shared experience, however, IS at the top.