Derail about why PK is bad

[Hauwke]

I havent killed anyone for their boots but thats only because I havent played a murderous pc.

[Jingo]

If you feel like someone is eschewing RP to play to win, that breaks the required RP rule. Put in a player complaint about them.

My take on this from Jingo's posts is that he generally feels like he's supposed to be mostly safe from other players because he's playing his.  I think the above statement has some misconceptions around it that playing a driven, ruthless character means that the player themself thinks they can win the game.

Nope. As usual you trot out a strawman for my actual position. I'm not against bad things happening to my character. I'm against the explicit metagamey, kneejerk reaction to kill any and all inconveniences to my character the easiest way possible.

I'd be thrilled if someone actually took the effort and the risk to actually hire an assassin to kill me. Rather than play locked room musical chairs.

But if your "driven, ruthless character" just leads me into a locked room or gets me killed on my first visit to the gaj, etc; then I'm gonna call bullshit. You didn't put any effort in. You have no right calling your character "driven". You're just lazy; you just want to win.

I miss the days when killing someone for his boots was something said on the GDB only half in jest, because those chalton boots were worth ~100 'sid and that's a perfectly good reason to murder somebody.

People who play like this forget very quickly that this is not normal human behavior. Most people do not kill unless they believe something extreme is at stake (2 days worth of salting isn't extreme). But I guess players really like their gritty power fantasy where they can kill without provocation.

But that's secondary to the fact that it's just shitty, griefy, garbage. It adds nothing to the game except 100 coins to your character's bank account and a tally to your .txt file. And it encourages victims to pick up unfun, avoident behaviors just to avoid getting griefed a second time.

I seriously don't play in clans anymore. Because I'm sick of getting powertripped on by leaders who pull out the bag of tricks over minor interpersonal tension. Like is this for fucking real? I don't want to play in clans anymore because leaders will kill me if I don't dance to their script. And I know for a fact that this is one of the reasons many players won't play in clans until they've spent 10+ days buffing up their character.

[Akaramu]

Um... wait. I play flawed characters, and I play in clans. I've never, ever, been killed by powertripping clan leaders. Not once. Not even Torgun killed me! And that's an accomplishment. 

Surprisingly, my most flawed character ever is at 25 days played and counting. Flawed or not, if you're Joe Commoner, you still have to make sure you're more useful alive than dead. You don't mouth off to dangerous people and if you commit treason, you pray you don't get caught.

[Jingo]

If you're Joe Commoner, you still have to make sure you're more useful alive than dead. You don't mouth off to dangerous people and if you commit treason, you pray you don't get caught.

Not even.

I'm talking more along the lines of being hired by leader 1 and working with explicit permission on an activity. But leader 2 disapproves and asks you not to engage in said activity which you refuse to because you're loyal to leader 1.  In the end leader 2 would rather just kill you than try to navigate the myriad of other ways to deal with the situation.

And for some dumb fucking reason, staff thinks it's a-okay for leader 2 to just kill you in a backroom. Nevermind all the servants and slaves that know exactly what's going down past the doorframe. Nevermind that leader 2 is directly interfering with house operations. Nevermind that you'll never consider interacting with leader 2 again because they'll kill you if they don't get to micromanage your character.

[Akaramu]

Sounds like leader 1 is to blame in that case, not leader 2. Sounds like they weren't secretive enough and didn't take necessary steps for your protection. These days, if I consider joining a clan, I screen the leader as much as they're screening me, maybe more. If they smell of incompetence and / or inexperience, I avoid. (Sorry, noobles).

This is also one of the reasons I don't do life oaths - I will not, ever, let myself be stuck in a clan with a leader I don't OOCly enjoy working for. I want to be able to leave if the leader I trust decides to store.

The same thing can happen if you're unclanned. Templar 1 orders you to do something, templar 2 messes with everything templar 1 is involved in. Killing minions is easier than killing other templars - unless you ALSO talk to templar 2, and convince them of the benefits of your continued existence. Or you're an indie grebber who gets hired for a secret job with Salarr, something that -really- pisses Kurac off. Again, killing the minion is easier than killing the Salarri who hired you.

[Jingo]

The situation was a bit more complicated than presented but nothing that should have resulted in a death without warning.

And it wasn't leader 1's fault. Leader 1 was also sick of leader 2 getting involved in their affairs. And they had every right to pursue their own plot lines without leader 2's involvement.

And no. Backroom killboxes are not cool. They are never acceptable.

[TheWanderer]

Lol. People honestly aren't randomly doing arrows to the neck for boots, are they?

And something, something, kill everybody you have a disagreement with and snuff that flame.

[Armaddict]

Edit:

I need to break the habit of trying to patiently explain my thought processes in hopes of coming across more clearly.  It results in more misunderstanding and contention over little details that don't matter.  But the gist of it is: Don't let jaded players with different viewpoints on the game make you feel like you're playing the game wrong.  Staff will let you know, and you can have that discussion with them.  If you feel something warrants a death-action, go with your best rendition of game world reinforcement by your understanding and means.

[Jingo]

Edit:

I need to break the habit of trying to patiently explain my thought processes in hopes of coming across more clearly.  It results in more misunderstanding and contention over little details that don't matter.  But the gist of it is: Don't let jaded players with different viewpoints on the game make you feel like you're playing the game wrong.  Staff will let you know, and you can have that discussion with them.  If you feel something warrants a death-action, go with your best rendition of game world reinforcement by your understanding and means.

Yeah I get it. And I apologize for ALWAYS being vitriolic in my language. I imagine a lot of people take it personally when it's really just meant to convey my feelings.

[TheWanderer]

I guess we can all just go with our gut and solely rely on former players to critique us, which people doubtlessly will. Though having a greater number of interesting, inspired players who knew the first thing about sustainable conflict would also be cool. Alas.

There's a steep learning curve (I was on it) and not everyone opts for it.

I'm more conscientious of my actions nowadays when it comes to a game that has a strong tendency to wane - like in recent months. I think there's a need to consider whether you're going to be the player that walks into a scene with the sole intent to kill for boots (as an example) or be the one that supplies alternative paths to the victim and lets them have a hand in a possible addition to their character's story.

In its current state, this game isn't built to handle a multitude of people that resort first to killing. There's a recent situation in mind that I think the player could have eased up on the reins. But I'm sure the game's exciting as fuck for them again. I think leaders have a greater responsibility to fan those flames, but whatever.

I haven't been playing much lately, but hopefully we're back over 35 at peak and people can do whatever the fuck they want.

[Armaddict]

In its current state, this game isn't built to handle a multitude of people that resort first to killing.

I will disagree, but only because from an overhead view (rather than a personal one), long-lasting power blocs are often more of a turn-off than anything due to how set in they are and the lack of availability for even abstract player-constructs to be affected by consecutive PC's.

Death keeps the game world turnin' and churnin'.

[Feco]

In its current state, this game isn't built to handle a multitude of people that resort first to killing.

I will disagree, but only because from an overhead view (rather than a personal one), long-lasting power blocs are often more of a turn-off than anything due to how set in they are and the lack of availability for even abstract player-constructs to be affected by consecutive PC's.

Death keeps the game world turnin' and churnin'.

+1

[Hauwke]

The only reason I dont kill those mouthy breeds and shitheads at the bar is because crimcode some days. It really, really is as simple as that. If I was allowed to plant a sword in fucktard-breed #30349485 I would bone-sword the idiot so hard.

I think the world needs to be grittier, I have pretty much twice in a row made long lasting combat pc's. Its quite ridiculous how easy it is to do. Someone try and kill me already.
Edit: No one has purposfully come after me and tried to kill me ever, despite the fact I intentionally play annoying characters. I have gotten away with stupid things just becuase I actually had the balls to ICly say something to someone.

[Feco]

Nothing like 2 warriors, a sand dune, and a couple bone swordz.

[boog]

I'm with TeeDubs, here. I'm always very conscientious. I prefer not killing, if only to give others a chance to kill me.

People take this game super seriously. And I also hate killing as a first resort. But, maybe that's because I prefer people be able to tell the stories of their character a little longer, to get some good content out of them. Reduce, reuse.

Y'all who kill just to kill kill me. I get it. I totally do. Sometimes, the situation calls for it. But if you snuff your every rival, you have no one left to play with or plot against, and that's just sad!

Meh. Let's face it, I guess, I'm always with TeeDubs on errythang. He puts our shared viewpoints into far more legible content. I bow to his superiority.

[Akaramu]

People take this game super seriously. And I also hate killing as a first resort. But, maybe that's because I prefer people be able to tell the stories of their character a little longer, to get some good content out of them. Reduce, reuse.

You know... I still have to send you that log, about that aide character of yours, and my most amazing Arm story to date... 

[Armaddict]

No one said just go around ganking willy-nilly.  I did say that I find the role-play culture that tells players to avoid real solutions (including death) to their conflicts is ultimately just as not-helpful as someone who -is- ganking willy-nilly.

I did say stop thinking of it as this drastic discredit to the game or that it's somehow shorting the game on roleplay.  It's not.  There are vast opportunities -created- through character death.  That's not the same as me saying 'just fuck it, kill everyone who pisses you off', because that would be silly.  But I am saying that 'Aw, but that's another player and we shouldn't kill characters' isn't really a good method either.  If nothing else, that only furthers the stagnation of a pool.

But if you snuff your every rival, you have no one left to play with or plot against, and that's just sad!

This is one of those things that gets said a lot of the time that really makes very little sense.  To put that in perspective, that's like me saying that you should kill more people otherwise you're depriving other people of enemies and friends by not getting character recycling going.  Running out of rivals is not a thing in Armageddon, unless everyone lives too long and you get on a working relationship with everyone.

[boog]

People take this game super seriously. And I also hate killing as a first resort. But, maybe that's because I prefer people be able to tell the stories of their character a little longer, to get some good content out of them. Reduce, reuse.

You know... I still have to send you that log, about that aide character of yours, and my most amazing Arm story to date... 

Yes, please.

You're the reason I tend not to PK anyone anymore. I'd never done it before. I had no idea what I was doing. It was my first sponsored role ever, and it definitely taught me a lot about the responsibility of a sponsored role to consider, very carefully, what you do and how you bring other players into the fold ... or take them out.

This is one of those things that gets said a lot of the time that really makes very little sense.  To put that in perspective, that's like me saying that you should kill more people otherwise you're depriving other people of enemies and friends by not getting character recycling going.  Running out of rivals is not a thing in Armageddon, unless everyone lives too long and you get on a working relationship with everyone.

No one wants to play around people, sponsored roles or not, who have a reputation for just snuffing out anyone who crosses them in the slightest. While the overarching themes of Armageddon are Murder, Corruption, and Betrayal, a heavy emphasis on just one of those aspects turns people off: this is a roleplay intensive MUD, and the richest play comes from the best stories. Constantly killing those stories makes for a dull time.

[Hauwke]

With my current pc I think I would like a random murder attempt. Encourage it even, if only to shake up the current situation.

[TheWanderer]

Death -is- good at times. That's a fact and I won't argue it. I've definitely thought it was needed within the last few years - even now for a couple PCs. I just don't think it should be arbitrarily dealt and you should responsibly weigh costs and benefits from an OOC standpoint. But that's just a difference in each player.

As I grow older and a little more distant from Arm, I become more critical of it. For instance, I did recently bear witness to an avenue for inciting some welcome conflict and drama, feuding, all that good stuff. Players could have taken opposing sides, involved people in that mess, and turned it into something entertaining. Fun. Generally more than what's become of the area in question.

Then all of those options were quickly closed off with the decision to simply murder the competition. All of that potential was lost. Thus, there was a prompt return to the tepid, stillwater stew of conflict that's continually sipped from in that particular area, one which some seem more than eager to luxuriate in.

Turning and churning the stew is good, but you need to try to fucking cook it completely before you decide to sit down and eat.

[Jingo]

Death -is- good at times. That's a fact and I won't argue it. I've definitely thought it was needed within the last few years - even now for a couple PCs. I just don't think it should be arbitrarily dealt and you should responsibly weigh costs and benefits from an OOC standpoint. But that's just a difference in each player.

As I grow older and a little more distant from Arm, I become more critical of it. For instance, I did recently bear witness to an avenue for inciting some welcome conflict and drama, feuding, all that good stuff. Players could have taken opposing sides, involved people in that mess, and turned it into something entertaining. Fun. Generally more than what's become of the area in question.

Then all of those options were quickly closed off with the decision to simply murder the competition. All of that potential was lost. Thus, there was a prompt return to the tepid, stillwater stew of conflict that's continually sipped from in that particular area, one which some seem more than eager to luxuriate in.

Turning and churning the stew is good, but you need to try to fucking cook it completely before you decide to sit down and eat.

Oh this post. This lovely post.

[BadSkeelz]

Just roll warriors, prioritize strength, and assume every PC (especially powerful PCs) will default to shit play in the least amount of tribulation. Works for me in the longevity department.

[Armaddict]

For instance, I did recently bear witness to an avenue for inciting some welcome conflict and drama, feuding, all that good stuff. Players could have taken opposing sides, involved people in that mess, and turned it into something entertaining. Fun. Generally more than what's become of the area in question.

Then all of those options were quickly closed off with the decision to simply murder the competition. All of that potential was lost. Thus, there was a prompt return to the tepid, stillwater stew of conflict that's continually sipped from in that particular area, one which some seem more than eager to luxuriate in.

This basically reads as it didn't go where you want it to go.  If things were truly as you describe, then there was opportunity for action and reaction, vengeance, grudges, violence, plotting, and everything that conflict promotes.  The assertion that murder cut it short is the assertion that said conflicts should be systematically and purposely marinated, more invested into it, and essentially kept artificially prolonged for some arbitrary amount of time (that apparently you get to decide what the 'appropriate' level is that it has to reach).

Turning and churning the stew is good, but you need to try to fucking cook it completely before you decide to sit down and eat.

Or you could actually realize that if you try and cook it too long you'll burn it, someone else will sit down and eat it, or your particular 'level' of cooking it is a personal one and not an authoritative condition of what it is to be a good stew.

[lairos]

Who determines when death is good or if its not in a situation? Is it staff, the people involved or those who heard/watched it unfold? I am pretty sure unless you specifically made your PC for the very purpose of just dying and were set on killing yourself off that it always sucks to lose a character. Sometimes it sucks for just the player and sometimes it sucks for several players. I believe having a rival/nemesis can lead to some epic times and see a lot more people tend to go that route, but sometimes it just is not in the cards. For example: If someone is trying to kill you IRL you probably would not just stand there and take it. If given a choice to either take a chance that would more than likely get you killed instead or remove the threat would you really take the chance?

I try to give the benefit of the doubt that when something goes down there was a lot more going on than I was aware of and I was just able to witness a small portion of it. More often than not, unless you were directly involved, you know a fraction of what happened. I am not oblivious to the fact that there are those out there who kill just for boots because I have been on the receiving end of that myself, but I don't think that is the majority.

[Jingo]

For instance, I did recently bear witness to an avenue for inciting some welcome conflict and drama, feuding, all that good stuff. Players could have taken opposing sides, involved people in that mess, and turned it into something entertaining. Fun. Generally more than what's become of the area in question.

Then all of those options were quickly closed off with the decision to simply murder the competition. All of that potential was lost. Thus, there was a prompt return to the tepid, stillwater stew of conflict that's continually sipped from in that particular area, one which some seem more than eager to luxuriate in.

This basically reads as it didn't go where you want it to go.  If things were truly as you describe, then there was opportunity for action and reaction, vengeance, grudges, violence, plotting, and everything that conflict promotes.

Be real. It never goes any other way. All problems in this game are solved with a hammer. The ones that try to moderate their approach just get killed. Except in the off time staff step in and shake a finger at you.

And it makes the game unfun if you want to try to have some conflict that doesn't involve luring your enemies into a kill box.