Kidnapping?

[Jingo]

I'm generally annoyed when players can't come up with some even remote alternative to murder in this game.

I sucks the intrigue right out when your solution to a problem always seems to kill other party.

[AdamBlue]

Hey, so, remember that poison that causes you to see shit all wild?

A fragile, weak-boned woman ways you, "HELP, HELP, I'M BEING KIDNAPPED BY TEKTOLNES."

[whitt]

I'm generally annoyed when players can't come up with some even remote alternative to murder in this game.

I sucks the intrigue right out when your solution to a problem always seems to kill other party.

After a couple of rounds of taking the road less travelled, letting the opposition live on and plot their revenge, only to learn the hard way that the opponent's revenge comes in a means permanent and deadly... the shine probably comes off the apple. 

Murder is cheap, quick, and permanent.  Murder solves the lack of anonymity between perpetrator and victim.  Murder is the best alternative from the standpoint of promoting your own survival.

Intrigue requires a lack of ability to simply murder your opponent, though in Zalanthas I would suggest that if the death of your opponent is not the end game of your intrigue, all your intrigues likely amount to is that you are setting yourself up to be killed by someone who can pull that lever.  And will.  As soon as your a big enough nuisance.

Intrigue therefore becomes the weapon of the powerful to be used against the weak.  You know who can kidnap someone?  Right off the streets?  The same ones that can kill them without repercussion.  Seen it happen.  Seen the folks that helped said kidnappers get dead within weeks.  Imagine the way between the Arm Corporal and the kidnap victim that goes...

Amos - I can't stay in your head long, but I've been kidnapped by Lady Fancypants and her press gang.

Corporal puts up barrier.

Intrigue in Zalanthas is a cat playing with its prey before it finally chomps down and puts the little victim down.

Going in the other direction can be loads of fun.  But you'd have to go in with open eyes that the end result?  Is the one perpetrating the intrigue is going to die horribly eventually.

PS - And that's Ok.

[Jingo]

Yeah. I just don't happen to think that's a good standard. It cripples the range and potential of stories.

But who the fuck cares about that when you can just win harder by murdering.

[Jihelu]

Yeah. I just don't happen to think that's a good standard. It cripples the range and potential of stories.

But who the fuck cares about that when you can just win harder by murdering.

All I do is win win win no matter what.
Kidnapping ain't on my mind and I never gave a fuck.
All I do is kill kill kill (I lost creativity right about here)


Kidnapping has a risk and reward.
The risk is being caught.
The reward is money and whatever is on the person.
So it's like killing someone but you keep them alive, though if people find out it may socially kill them as well.

[Armaddict]

I'm generally annoyed when players can't come up with some even remote alternative to murder in this game.

I sucks the intrigue right out when your solution to a problem always seems to kill other party.

I think you'd be surprised how often people do have the opportunity to kill someone who is an enemy, or someone they think is an enemy...and they don't.  I'm one of those players who has 0 qualms with killing your character.  0.  If you make my character afraid that things are going to come around and smack them in the face, life is cheap in Zalanthas, and that includes yours.  Death has been a part of most character's lives for the majority of it.

Intrigue is not an agreement between players to draw out a plot.  Intrigue is the result of two people who have a healthy respect (i.e. fear) for each other, and they are playing games to create opportunities of removal of said person, either via death or some other crippling means that lowers their threat level.  There are many PC's who never hit that level that intrigue is necessary.  There are others that -start- in a position where you can't just go at them.

However, breaking this down into a 'well, you killed my character.  You just cut intrigue out of the game' is a very narrow view of what plots are and how they evolve in the desert crisis that is Armageddon.  Generally speaking, if you keep your head down and avoid turning altercations into larger ones, even your enemies, generally, give a pass.  I've been privy to a lot of PC reluctance to kill.  I often play the 'trigger man'.  And seeing the things that make the slow nod of agreement that someone has to die is generally something where an escalation is occurring and it needs to be dealt with before the intrigue necessary is more than what can be gathered.

Think of intrigue in terms of CKII, if you've ever played it.  If someone is getting too powerful, and is an enemy of yours, you start worrying whether or not your plot power will be enough to prevent them from spymastering the shit out of you, instead.

And that is my spiel.  The insinuation that murder is bad in this game is a bad one; it has a very real place in how characters interact.  If you're getting murdered often, that probably means your characters are going out of their way to make enemies who don't have the time to have enemies, or don't have the time to have enemies getting up in their shit.

[Jingo]

I'm generally annoyed when players can't come up with some even remote alternative to murder in this game.

I sucks the intrigue right out when your solution to a problem always seems to kill other party.

Intrigue is not an agreement between players to draw out a plot.  Intrigue is the result of two people who have a healthy respect (i.e. fear) for each other, and they are playing games to create opportunities of removal of said person, either via death or some other crippling means that lowers their threat level.  There are many PC's who never hit that level that intrigue is necessary.  There are others that -start- in a position where you can't just go at them.

No. What your describing isn't intrigue, it's more like whack-a-mole.

In your conception, there is zero allowance for players to play anything remotely subversive unless they play a top echelon leadership role. Those beneath that fall out of line get whacked. Those that don't inevitably fall into a bizarro happy-go-lucky sacharine realm of smiley happy faces and mudsex. Granted, the facade drops when they have to sociopathic-ly backroom murder someone. But when it pops back up they're still just as boring to play with.

And yeah. Intrigue in this game does require an understanding from player to player that you'll at least try to make your interactions interesting in a meaningful way. Even if that understanding is unspoken. It requires trust from player to player that you won't jump the gun at the slightest provocation.

However, breaking this down into a 'well, you killed my character.  You just cut intrigue out of the game' is a very narrow view of what plots are and how they evolve in the desert crisis that is Armageddon.  Generally speaking, if you keep your head down and avoid turning altercations into larger ones, even your enemies, generally, give a pass.  I've been privy to a lot of PC reluctance to kill.  I often play the 'trigger man'.  And seeing the things that make the slow nod of agreement that someone has to die is generally something where an escalation is occurring and it needs to be dealt with before the intrigue necessary is more than what can be gathered.

Recent experience has taught me that this isn't remotely true. Players will kill you just because they can without consequence. They will MAKE UP reasons to fuck over your pc because they CAN and because the THINK you're a threat. And really, when you're a leader that's all the excuse you need.

Think of intrigue in terms of CKII, if you've ever played it.  If someone is getting too powerful, and is an enemy of yours, you start worrying whether or not your plot power will be enough to prevent them from spymastering the shit out of you, instead.

It's funny how you bring up CKII. Did you ever notice how that number beneath someone's portrait would turn red if it became known that you're a murderer? That doesn't happen in Armageddon. There is no meaningful consequence when a leader dumps on an employee in armageddon. No chill in morale, no questions from their superiors, no friends or family asking about the disappearance, nothing.

Have you also noticed that you can't pull the rug out from one of your vassals without consequence anyways? You become a tyrant if you steal your vassal's claims. There is no consequence to stripping someone naked and tossing them in prison in Armageddon however.

And that is my spiel.  The insinuation that murder is bad in this game is a bad one; it has a very real place in how characters interact.  If you're getting murdered often, that probably means your characters are going out of their way to make enemies who don't have the time to have enemies, or don't have the time to have enemies getting up in their shit

I've never said murder was bad for the game. Some of my favorite plays have been made by assassins assasinating. My 'insinuation' is that over proliferation of murder as a tool to solve problems results in a stagnant game.

There's murder. But have you ever noticed that there is no corruption? The corrupt get murdered.

[Armaddict]

No. What your describing isn't intrigue, it's more like whack-a-mole.

noun
ˈinˌtrēɡ,inˈtrēɡ/
1.
the secret planning of something illicit or detrimental to someone.

Intrigue is another weapon in an arsenal.  If you're going to make enemies to engage in intrigue, you need to be expecting that intrigue to be building towards an end point.  Intrigue is not a non-aggression pact between players.

What I'm describing is not whack-a-mole.  Neither is it restricted to upper echelons.  I have 'rinthers who have to engage in intrigue.  I have 'rinthers who require intrigue to get the best of.  I have mercenaries who engage in intrigue.  I have mercenaries who require intrigue to get the best of.  Intrigue is what happens when two adversaries require manipulation and maneuvering to get at each other.  It is not some cheap excuse for storytelling, particularly not in a game that demands as close to realistic behavior as possible from you;  you use it when necessary, you keep your defense against it active, and you know that you have an arch nemesis when they are matching your moves with their moves, and neither of you can get the other into a position where a move can be made without the detrimental side effects that you require intrigue to bypass.

The way you make it sound, people use intrigue to avoid just crushing people under their boots all the time.  I counter that people who can crushed under boots generally are, the moment that they make themselves a thorn in the side of someone with a higher degree of social and political currency than them.  One of the fundamental rules of survival of Armageddon is learning the upsides and downsides of everyone who you decide to be useful to, and who you decide (or are dragged into deciding) should be an enemy.

Intrigue in this game does require an understanding from player to player that you'll at least try to make your interactions interesting in a meaningful way.

Again, intrigue is not a non-aggression pact.  It's just the elevation from brute force to finesse and politics.  The end goal remains the same, which is removal or subjugation of a current or potential problem to your character or their goals.  Intrigue just for the hell of it is neither a strong contribution nor particularly interesting to take part in.

Recent experience has taught me that this isn't remotely true. Players will kill you just because they can without consequence. They will MAKE UP reasons to fuck over your pc because they CAN and because the THINK you're a threat. And really, when you're a leader that's all the excuse you need.

Just because someone decides to kill you doesn't make it a dominating mindset.  I'm sorry you're bitter over recent experience, but if you take a look at the profile of player versus player activity as a whole, as well as discussions on the topic, there's been a pretty momentous shift over the course of time.  It's one that I'm somewhat at odds with, because I don't think it adds as much to the game as is asserted, as much as it just lets individuals progress through their own plots more.  However, again...playing as someone who is almost never a leader, but usually a dependable to those he's associated with, I've had many situations where solutions are being discussed and an easy removal is seldom one of them until it hits a level that someone is purposely escalating a situation or purposely ignoring a negotiated de-escalation.

I don't think anyone wanders through this game looking at every person they're remotely at odds with and thinking constantly "I'll kill them if I get the chance."  If there are, then they're a rarity.

Did you ever notice how that number beneath someone's portrait would turn red if it became known that you're a murderer? That doesn't happen in Armageddon. There is no meaningful consequence when a leader dumps on an employee in armageddon. No chill in morale, no questions from their superiors, no friends or family asking about the disappearance, nothing.

Have you also noticed that you can't pull the rug out from one of your vassals without consequence anyways? You become a tyrant if you steal your vassal's claims. There is no consequence to stripping someone naked and tossing them in prison in Armageddon however.

I think you're trying a little too hard with the analogy.  I spoke of plot power and you've now equivocated the entire political system of feudal europe and the dominant ethics and relationships of the time to Zalanthas; there is a giant pile of bodies and a torture device on the main thoroughfare of Allanak.  There is an execution device down the road.  There are the equivalent of sheriffs who point fingers and people die, for whatever arbitrary reason they want.  These -do- indeed make negatives on those numbers under their names, but only to some people.  For others, it makes them quite green.  There is a social and political currency involved in intrigue, as mentioned above, where expenditures and incomes are very dynamic;  If someone went around just killing everyone they wanted, I agree that their number would be quite red, but as I said, there just aren't that many people who run around trying to rack up red numbers.

I've never said murder was bad for the game. Some of my favorite plays have been made by assassins assasinating. My 'insinuation' is that over proliferation of murder as a tool to solve problems results in a stagnant game.

There's murder. But have you ever noticed that there is no corruption? The corrupt get murdered.

I agree, you did not.  But you do seem to have a thing where you equivocate plots with not killing.  Murder in this game, executions, assassinations...they all proliferate other plots, they just...end others.  Avoiding it can result in just as much stagnation, as everyone settles into their happy little niches and agrees to get along with each other.  To use Littlefinger from Game of Thrones...chaos is a ladder.  Sometimes, deaths open up niches that result in scrambles between nearby parties to fill it.  Sometimes, it furthers the safety of a group so that they can make a move that they were worried about before.  But professing to the playerbase that we're all killing too much (which is what your original statement -inferred-, at least to me), when I have seen a very real improvement in how killing other pc's has been handled and treated by the population of the game, is doing a disservice to the maintenance of the ideal of Zalanthas.  Life is hard. You have to fight for it.  You have to claw through it.  You have to struggle.  And there will be paths crossed with other people that can result in allies and enemies.   React to them realistically, and you have a rich role-playing atmosphere fraught with danger and excitement.  Try to fabricate some false sense of consideration for how your actions affect people, beyond whether or not it's real for the character, and the game suffers.

This is not me saying everyone go kill more, though that is how it sounds.  Moreso, just reminding people that small jabs at the idea of bathing in the blood of your enemies make the appearance that the community is not in support of said actions, when it should be known that as long as you hold true to character, the plots will thrive, and in making that character true to Zalanthas, the game will thrive.


As far as the original topic, it should also be noted that I'm not particularly against any of the ideas.  My contrariness here comes from the disagreement that kidnapping is impossible; I think that's clinging a little too hard to the idea that every crime you commit and every altercation needs to be perfectly performed.  Kidnappers, raiders, criminals...there is always a very strong push for anonymity or it's not worth doing.  Anonymity certainly makes it prolific, but you can play that subversive well and good while being known as a subversive.  As a matter of fact, if you're doing well at it and engaging well...the intrigue involved should be very strong...unless magick-seal teams are sent.

[Jingo]

Gotta win win win win win.

[Hauwke]

I have some very small experience with kidnapping, eg was knocked out and dragged somewhere.

Yeah it wasnt very fun oocly, becuase of the whole no interaction thing, but at the same time I think bashing a fool over the head and dragging them around, in a way that disguises the fact they arent themselves walking makes sense. Eg helping your passed out drinking buddy.

Thats just my opinion, sure it might look suspicious from an ooc standpoint but icly, wouldnt there be tons of drunken fucks passed out being helped home at stupid oclock in the morning?

[Armaddict]

Gotta win win win win win.

...yes.  All of that was really just me disagreeing with you in such a way to deceive everyone so I could keep on winning.  You've uncovered my nefarious plot to harvest your text-soul as many times as I can until I can morph into Tektolnes and wrest control of the game so I can kick you guys out of it, and become king of the mountain.

Are you for real?

[Jingo]

Well. Yeah. It comes from an ooc need to dominate other players.

If I didn't know better, it would be the entire point of this mud.

[Erythil]

Yall gettin mad.  I just want a viable way to keep someone prisoner in my secret base for like 4 hours.

[LauraMars]

I just want a viable way to keep someone prisoner in my secret base for like 4 hours.

Yep, let's keep it on topic.

[Norcal]

Yall gettin mad.  I just want a viable way to keep someone prisoner in my secret base for like 4 hours.

If your secret base has a lockable door, then that helps some at least. 

There are ways to RP a kidnapping scenario, yet they are just that; RP.  Both players would have to want to give it a go and the victim would have to be mature enough to avoid using the code to simply get up and run away.   I don't like the idea of keeping someone out cold for hours on end. It does not give them the chance to play and they end up just being a prop. Not cool.

[Lizzie]

Once, I played a character who got kidnapped via magickal means. I (the player) knew exactly where my character was, and how she could get out of there, more or less (she would've gotten lost a lot because the way in and out is kind of like a big huge maze). But my character had no idea where she was, nor did she know that there was an escape route. It was dark and scary there, and she was stuck there for a couple of RL days, occasionally in the presence of her kidnapper, who would not allow her to see him.

I had ZERO problem remaining kidnapped for the entire time she was kidnapped, and eventually he released her. Of course he killed her not long after the kidnapping but that's because she did things that made him think she was an actual threat to him in subsequent days. Her actions led to her death. It was a pretty awesome death too, even though it happened pretty quick.

Part of the "issue" with kidnapping is that the kidnapped PC should only know what makes sense for them to know, even if the player knows more. If your character was stolen away to a place he's never been, and doesn't recognize the area, and he's told "there are guards outside who will murderdeathkill if you so much as TRY to open that door" then you need to react appropriately to that.  Think of hostage situations - it's certainly possible for a hostage to TRY to make a run for it. But it is also certainly possible that he will fail, lethally. On the other hand, a guy with a pistol isn't going to be capable of killing 20 hostages who all gang-rush him for the door all at the same time. He doesn't have enough bullets for one, and 20 moving targets is harder to hit than 6 targets just sitting there cowering in their boots. As a hostage, do you want to take a chance that you'll be the recipient of that successful shot? If you're one of 20? If you're the ONLY one there? Especially if you can't see your kidnapper and can hear his voice once in awhile reminding you that he's always watching?

Fear is what created the city-states in the first place. Why is YOUR character any more immune to fear than the leagues of men and women who allowed their oppressors to gain power in the first place?

So my suggestion is to the kidnapped. Allow your character to BE kidnapped. I mean unless it's a really ridiculously bungled attempt (like someone with no weapon poking a brown tuber in your ribcage in the middle of a noble party with 3 templars and 40 soldiers present, saying "let me pass or the half-breed gets it") - in which case react to THAT appropriately too and let him try and bludgeon you to death with his brown tuber.

[Desertman]

someone with no weapon poking a brown tuber in your ribcage in the middle of a noble party with 3 templars and 40 soldiers present, saying "let me pass or the half-breed gets it") - in which case react to THAT appropriately too and let him try and bludgeon you to death with his brown tuber.

10/10 would kudos

(Also, there is a gif I've seen before of a gal getting a giant brown dong smacked against her face that I would post here if I were allowed. Since I'm not allowed, just imagine that for me.)

[Jihelu]

someone with no weapon poking a brown tuber in your ribcage in the middle of a noble party with 3 templars and 40 soldiers present, saying "let me pass or the half-breed gets it") - in which case react to THAT appropriately too and let him try and bludgeon you to death with his brown tuber.

10/10 would kudos

(Also, there is a gif I've seen before of a gal getting a giant brown dong smacked against her face that I would post here if I were allowed. Since I'm not allowed, just imagine that for me.)

Find the gif of the girl being hit in the face with hot dogs, about the same thing.

But yeah rp is good btw.

[Classclown]

Can't you just get someone drunk to keep them from waying? A few shots of Oash spirits and they'll just be waying a wavy face.

[The Silence of the Erdlus]

There was a story in the submissions about a girl who was held in prison and driven nearly mad by confinement for a month. Pretty good stuff.

[The Silence of the Erdlus]

There was a story in the submissions about a girl who was held in prison and driven nearly mad by confinement for a month. Pretty good stuff.

Conversely, this was done by an organization that had the means to buy/rent a building to keep her in within the city, and not a rogue or evil tribal or elf.