PKing: Let's Talk About the State of It

[Krath]

...

Holy shit, this would be fucking awesome.

...

All of this!

[titansfan]

I would think if they declined consent for torture they would just die.....right? I'd love these ideas so much more flavor than what happens most times now. Making it more meaningful to be with a group from both sides too. Me likey.

[Bebop]

Not to be that guy but my thread is totally derailed at this point.

My initial point was RP>PK.  Let the world breath, incubate, and let people who aren't playing combat based characters have a chance to enrich the story.  Remember we're playing a story-led game and the story should take a priority.

If you guys want more ways to kill and torment that's another thread.  My problem isn't how PK occurs, its how PK can become overused it as a plot device instead of story enrichment.

[Armaddict]

It's not really derailed, it's moreso people saying that they don't think PK needs to be minimalized, just made more interesting.  RP>PK makes them mutually exclusive, which is not only not the case, but far from the case.

[Hauwke]

Rp Is RP, PK is also RP. A lot of people tend to forget that just because someone dies, their entire story does not just disappear. They cease to exist sure, but the ramifications of them dying spread through the people who were close to them, and then to others that know those people.

[X-D]

And on to that point, How do you know that the PK was the first option? I have had MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY times I have gone though just about every possible option before finally having to kill that PC and then had that player bitch on the GDB that PK should not have been the first option.

Secondly, One has to consider it from you PC's point of view. No real person is going to go, "Hey, I should leave my arch enemy Amos alive to enrich the world with our hatred of each other!" No, it is, "Do unto him before he can do unto me."

[Bebop]

And on to that point, How do you know that the PK was the first option? I have had MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY times I have gone though just about every possible option before finally having to kill that PC and then had that player bitch on the GDB that PK should not have been the first option.

Secondly, One has to consider it from you PC's point of view. No real person is going to go, "Hey, I should leave my arch enemy Amos alive to enrich the world with our hatred of each other!" No, it is, "Do unto him before he can do unto me."

I'm not referring to any specific instance.  Also not gonna repeat the same point I've made multiple times here.  When I made this post there were times that 13 people were logging in at peak hours on a Friday.  And PK was happening very frequently.

[Vex]

I would think if they declined consent for torture they would just die.....right?

They would die, anyway. I have never, ever heard, of someone being tortured, and left to live, regardless of if they "gave it up" or not.

If you want to be one of those people, who is into that kind of rp, you can already do so, without wasting coder time, on a bunch of torture machines. All you need is someone to say yes and emote away.

[Armaddict]

They would die, anyway. I have never, ever heard, of someone being tortured, and left to live, regardless of if they "gave it up" or not.

I have had characters released after torture, and have had maiming done to my characters for them to live through after.

Usually templars or members of the Guild, insuring that you know that they are scary and they mean business, but they still want you to do something for them.

Just sayin', it's not -that- weird.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

The reason I think that PK is often considered the best option to end conflict is:
1. It really can absolutely just end the fucking conflict.
2. Beating your foe to the dirt means nothing in the long term code wise - you can't really maim someone code wise short of whipping them.
3. People tend to not roleplay fear completely accurately. Since they know that as long as they survive, they can come back, they do, instead of just cowering for the rest of their lives.

This is one of the main reasons I'd love options for forced maiming to varying degrees. It's a lot like the argument for giving mages more options to inspire fear. Having code enforce consequences makes them mean so much more.

Things like hitting negative HP should be an auto-maim of some sort. They can be tiny things. Things like a few hp/stun/move lost. Things like an horrendous wound to your hand taking you to negative HP could mean decreased disarm ability, while the same to the head might lower stun permanently. If a person has you subdued and decides to chop off your hand, he should be able to actually remove that wear slot from your list. Things like this would allow the more powerful person ways to end immediate conflict and instill the proper fear in you all at the same time.

I'm with Bebop in saying that I would love PVP to end in many ways aside from death. I wouldn't want anything to change, rule wise, except for coded bad things to be able to be dealt to people aside from death.

By the way, Bebop, I'd say yeah, this got derailed a bit, but it had been dead for like ... two months by the time the derail happened. We're just tagging on!

[Cind]

What if nilazis came back, and one type of them had an 'ability' that allowed a pc to come back from the dead?

It would have to be addressed OOCly through the request tool, with a staff saying "Okay yeah" and then they would email the nilazi in question that "Hey, so-and-so wants to come back, so wiggle some junk at 5 p.m. on Thursday or Friday and I will see this happen." It sounds like a pain in the ass code-wise and like it takes up some paperwork, but--- come on, don't you want to see this be a possibility?

It doesn't even have to happen that much. The pc's player can play a short-lived thief while the paperwork is being processed and they're being given the o.k. Maybe this sort of thing isn't approved most of the time--- only happening once or twice every RL year. But the -possibility- that this can happen, would really give me the shivers. Think of the last big bad you had to fight. What if you had to live with the possibility that a witch could bring them back to life?

[Patuk]

What if nilazis came back, and one type of them had an 'ability' that allowed a pc to come back from the dead?

It would have to be addressed OOCly through the request tool, with a staff saying "Okay yeah" and then they would email the nilazi in question that "Hey, so-and-so wants to come back, so wiggle some junk at 5 p.m. on Thursday or Friday and I will see this happen." It sounds like a pain in the ass code-wise and like it takes up some paperwork, but--- come on, don't you want to see this be a possibility?

It doesn't even have to happen that much. The pc's player can play a short-lived thief while the paperwork is being processed and they're being given the o.k. Maybe this sort of thing isn't approved most of the time--- only happening once or twice every RL year. But the -possibility- that this can happen, would really give me the shivers. Think of the last big bad you had to fight. What if you had to live with the possibility that a witch could bring them back to life?

There's already a ton of griping when a score of people dies off through event shenanigans or other unsatisfying ways and there's no leniency. How bad would you reckon that should get if the default weren't 'no rez' entirely?

[MeTekillot]

It seems like there's a ton of griping somewhere by someone no matter what. I'd rather there be griping while cool, dynamic, eldritch shit is happening than griping about how nothing happens.

[Patuk]

Cool, eldritch shit like some rando sending in a request on a thursday afternoon after some guys spent a hell of a lot of effort trying to kill them?

[Heade]

Yeah...I don't like it for PCs. For staff-led plots or events it'd be ok. But players who were killed by players being rezzed by players would create stupid. And WHO, do you think, would primarily be the ones to benefit from this? Templars and Nobles.

The amount of time, effort, and planning that goes into offing such a person is already a huge discouragement from attempting it. If this were brought in, it'd just make some of the safest roles in the game even safer. We don't need safer.

[MeTekillot]

Cool, eldritch shit like some rando sending in a request on a thursday afternoon after some guys spent a hell of a lot of effort trying to kill them?

Some rando with 3 karma who has to do a pain in the ass ritual that probably requires staff oversight and approval.

[Patuk]

Cool, eldritch shit like some rando sending in a request on a thursday afternoon after some guys spent a hell of a lot of effort trying to kill them?

Some rando with 3 karma who has to do a pain in the ass ritual that probably requires staff oversight and approval.

Exactiy this is what I take issue with and believe shouldn't become a thing, yes.

[MeTekillot]

Care to elaborate?

[Cind]

I like the idea but I don't think it would actually become a reality because of the amount of work staff and players would have to do to rez this guy. In my version it would always be either 1) someone the nilazi decided was worth performing the ritual for, a dear friend or required associate, or 2) someone the nilazi was told to attempt the ritual for. The ritual to rez someone would require 1) a maxxed-out nilazi performing their top-tier spell, being of the highest-karma elemental category, and 2) some hard work that requires help to achieve, so that every other nilaz hiding by themselves in Storm doesn't attempt this ritual. For example, the skull of a mekillot, the mane of a kiyet lion, four candles and the severed head of a full-blooded human being.

OOC requirements would be that the player being rezzed -must- be pertinent enough to a long-standing plot for them being rezzed to be worth the effort. Also, staff would make it clear underneath the (ic) resurrection helpfile that MOST people who apply for this would not be accepted, and that it is completely up to staff who can be rezzed or not. Nothing besides the above I mentioned would be in the way--- so a long-lived group in Storm trying to take down the militia can rez their powerful sorcerer, and the Guild can rez their second-in-command. Not just for templars and nobles. And since someone mentioned that this would make templars and nobles more unkillable, staff would have a policy of being more likely to turn them down. Maybe the elements sense that templars and nobles are driven by their fear of their rotting-king, but sense a 'true' lust for blood in people like rogue Stormers. This could be the lore, or the truth, or both.

[Namino]

To resurrect someone, the Nilazi dies at the completion of the ritual.

Do you want it, Nilazi?

Do you want it baaaaaad?

[Shalooonsh]

Nilaz is the non-element of absence. 
Nilaz is the non-element of nothingness.

Nilaz is NOT necromancy.

TYVM for coming to my TEDtalk.

[Veselka]

Nilazi                                                               (Guilds)

   Nilazi are the antithesis of all the other elementalists of Zalanthas. At their fingertips is the
power to go against the other elements. Of all the elementalists of Zalanthas, there is not a less
trusted individual than the void mages, besides defilers themselves. Not only will the general
populace distrust void elementalists, but all the other elementalists seek to drive them from
existence.

   Void mage spells often invoke the name of Nilaz, the theorized space where all elements are
absent. Their magicks involve extra-planar spacial manipulations and blocking the other elements.

   Due to their nature, void elementalists are distrustful of most and so
make questionable at best travelling companions.

  Anathema
    The Aspect of Anathema describes Nilaz as the antithesis of elemental energy. Nilazi who are
aligned with this aspect of their element are capable of negating or turning such energies against
those that wield them. They are also capable of tampering with the natural equilibrium of their
victims to disrupt or damage.
Notes:
   The Aspect of Anathema requires three karma to play.

See also:
   Magick Basics, Magick Element

I just got happy.

[Hauwke]

Is that to say that we can expect a few Nilazi around at some point? Because that would be dope.

[X-D]

Without the necromancy spells they are lame.

Least one or two of those should be reworked to make them not undead use and givin back to the guild.

[John]

Without the necromancy spells they are lame.

Least one or two of those should be reworked to make them not undead use and givin back to the guild.

I am hopeful that staff would not have gone to the effort of creating a subguild without making sure it was appropriately fleshed out. We may not have undead spells specifically, but it should be on par with the latest versions of the Whitman and run subguilds.

It is quite heartening to see staff reinjecting those elements which make Armageddon unique and distinct.