Cripple (x) head/leg/body/arm

[Dar]

I like the idea. As long as it gets logged in notes and such much like kills are. I can imagine a dude who's leery of mass killing the entirety of the opposite side of the rinth he's in while they're all young and untrained, because it'd be a twinky and unrealistic way of power control (targetting only pcs, as if they're the real representation of west/east side power of the rinth). While at the same time, more then eager to continuously keep the entire side crippled, etc.

Or if a Templar decides that every elf he sees must have broken fingers, they should start with the virtual population.

[JohnMichaelHenry]

I sorta like the idea of being able to codedly cripple a person. I have been in situations where I'm supposed to be roleplaying an injury and I just forget and after a few more times playing it's like it never happened.

Howevah,

I do not like the idea of stats being permanently lowered. Whether we like to admit it or not, there are some players that would abuse such power. I can already see the entire elf population of Allanak ending up with broken hands and fingers, limiting their ability to do what comes naturally to elves, and thereby giving someone yet another opportunity to cripple them more. Seeing how agility would be the targeted stat, it would affect so many other things. Agility is pretty important. I could be okay with a temporary loss of specific skills or something. As long as there is a way to seek out healing that would completely remove the effects. PC to PC interaction is MY preferred method of play, but there are some that are quite happy if all their friends are NPC's.

[MeTekillot]

As long as there is a way to seek out healing that would completely remove the effects.

Did you read the first post?

And spice would also be able to temporarily mitigate the effects of being crippled, depending on the spice in question.

[JohnMichaelHenry]

I did read it, yes. The way you have it there, the only choice one has after being crippled is to go see a Vivaduan. ( I mean, cuz who's really gonna ask a sorcerer to fix their broken arm) And don't forget, it has to be a Vivaduan that can HEAL, which is I'm quite certain without looking at any statistics, is more rare now than it ever has been.

I do see upon reread that you said shouldn't be able to cripple over and over again. That's a viable option.

I still think it affecting stats is too much. For example. You broke my legs, and my agility is lowered, which will affect things like stealing, sleight of hand, swinging my weapon (hit chance is agility right? Or at least number of attacks per round is) which I should still be able to do perfectly fine. That is why I like Mansa's idea about skill impairment vs. stats being lowered.

[MeTekillot]

Targeting stats was intended to make it a little more simple to implement but I'm game for being able to target specific skills as well. I don't want the scope of the idea to creep to where it would be too unweldy to implement.

[Kryos]

Hello.

I would just like to point out that this is the 50 year + old mistake of getting a small measure of fun for one person at the expenditure of a lot of it for another.  This does not make a game fun to play.

[kahuna]

I would just like to point out that this is the 50 year + old mistake of getting a small measure of fun for one person at the expenditure of a lot of it for another.

Maybe there could just be a nosave option for cripple? I think that would put the onus on the victim to say "I'm okay with this.. I want to roleplay this.." otherwise if the nosave flag for cripple is off you just can't cripple them.

I will say that this is probably a waste though for the coders because 90% of players will just leave the flag off so they can't be crippled.

[Riev]

consent to Maim already exists, and if the player does not consent, that is consent to kill.

[kahuna]

consent to Maim already exists, and if the player does not consent, that is consent to kill.

Well I don't think you ever need to consent to kill. That's never been a thing, pkills can happen at any moment in the game with or without consent.

Where does it state that you have to consent to maiming? I read help consent and see nothing about that.

[Riev]

Then you missed a full paragraph.

In the case of mutilation, an action that would cause a character to lose their ability to function in some way, the victim may request that they be killed by the procedure. It is then the instigator's responsibility to attempt to kill the victim, or take some other appropriate course of action. The victim should not request other punishments, bargain, or otherwise discuss the situation out of character beyond this provision.

[kahuna]

Ah right. So blinding, crippling, etc. Is already by consent? I never knew that. So adding cripple would contradict the current policy? That's not good.

[Krath]

Hello.

I would just like to point out that this is the 50 year + old mistake of getting a small measure of fun for one person at the expenditure of a lot of it for another.  This does not make a game fun to play.

Based on the feedback in this thread only, it seems that only one or two people are completely opposed to the idea, and more are actually for it.

That being said, If Consent to maim already does this, which I was not aware of, I would like staff to chime in and say so.

If that is the case, when someone is stunned or mortally wounded you could "OOC Consent to Maim, or die?" and let the player decide. If nothing is said in like a minute, finish the job.

[Brytta Léofa]

Strongly in favor of this general idea and admire the simplicity of the specific idea.

I came up with a list of maiming types and affects based on these criteria:

• Change abilities, not stats.
• Provide a lot of different options: some mostly cosmetic, some damaging but playable, and some really crippling.
• Anything with a major long-term coded affect creates a request (in the request tool) for the perpetrator to note the circumstances. (Do this only if PKing does the same thing--if that's a direction we want to go.)

The List of Badness:

• Remove ear (left or right): creates appropriate ear object (elf -> elf ear), adds missing ear scar, no code penalty.
• Remove finger on hand (primary or secondary): creates finger object, adds missing finger scar, can't wear a ring on that finger. If more than three fingers removed on a hand, can't ep/es with that hand, request opened.
• Remove hand (primary or secondary): creates hand object, can't ep/es with that hand, victim knocked unconscious, request opened.
• Smash knee: victim can't run, walk description is "limping," may heal or become permanent, request opened.
• Smash ankle: can't run, walk description is "hobbling," permanent, request opened.
• Remove foot: can't run, missing foot desc added, walk description is "hobbling," permanent, request opened.
• Remove tongue: creates tongue object, victim's speech changed to babbling, permanent, request opened.
• Remove eye (right or left): creates eye object, no coded penalty for first eye (for simplicity). Second eye applies permanent blind affect, request opened.

[Kryos]

Based on the feedback in this thread only, it seems that only one or two people are completely opposed to the idea, and more are actually for it.

That being said, If Consent to maim already does this, which I was not aware of, I would like staff to chime in and say so.

If that is the case, when someone is stunned or mortally wounded you could "OOC Consent to Maim, or die?" and let the player decide. If nothing is said in like a minute, finish the job.

We didn't read the same thread then, most have caveats attached to their acceptance.  That also has nothing to do with what you quoted.

Should anyone be surprised that those with G inclinations want to use those more, on top of just PK'ing and social bullying?  No.  It fits with the theme too.

Is that actually healthy or good for a game?  Not like this it isn't.  As purposed this is simply a cudgel that will be wielded just as bluntly.

[MeTekillot]

How is this idea worse than just straight up PKing someone? I've had caveats that it not be permanent, if you don't mind becoming a spicer or become known to consort with wigglers.

[kahuna]

How is this idea worse than just straight up PKing someone? I've had caveats that it not be permanent, if you don't mind becoming a spicer or become known to consort with wigglers.

You're forcing players into a role they might not want to play. Most people would rather just roll a new PC, so if you cripple them and ruin their character beyond repair they are going to suicide/retire and move on.

This really comes down to the freedom of letting players do what they find fun. If someone chooses to be a cripple in chargen that is vastly different than someone becoming crippled ICly and codedly by another player.

[MeTekillot]

Yes, they can choose to store or suicide if they want. I see no problem. I prefer giving them options other than ending their character right there, since there are no other ways for me to affect their character for a semi-permanent period beyond that moment in time in which I have bested them.

[Riev]

I think what Metekillot is saying, that seems ... somehow to be getting misheard in text is this;


This system would only work when someone is Mortally Wounded or in a state where PK is effortless/inevitable.
There is already a consent to maim a character, this would give the maim options to the Player involved, putting the work and onus on them, rather than staff, or the maimed character to RP something they don't "have to".

You don't consent to be maimed? Then you're dead, fine.
You consent to be maimed? Now you walk at halfspeed and hate your life but your PC lives on.

[MeTekillot]

I mean, personally, I'd keep with being able to cripple any helpless person whether or not they consent, and allow people who could resist to instead give up a nosave on it. The player can just store, after all.

[MeTekillot]

I would just like to point out that this is the 50 year + old mistake of getting a small measure of fun for one person at the expenditure of a lot of it for another.  This does not make a game fun to play.

A crippled character has far reaching plot-hook effects on anyone who associates with that character, whether presently or in the future. A dead character leaves only the people that knew them to get revenge, whether or not they want it. A cripple can strive for his own vengeance, and feel the sting of lost lovers and friends who can't bear to look at him, or who no longer wish to associate with him as he's no longer useful.

[Riev]

Ah right. So blinding, crippling, etc. Is already by consent? I never knew that. So adding cripple would contradict the current policy? That's not good.

... Also... no.

You cannot remove a character's tongue, causing them the inability to speak, without their consent. If the player is not interested in playing a mute character, it is the instigator's responsibility to kill them off, or not, as their character would proceed.

I don't understand how, then, adding a command to do this rather than relying on staff to respond to the situation, is against policy. Unless you are suggesting that staff would take this command, implement it vanilla, and completely disregard their own policies.

[Brokkr]

Vivaduans would not be able to heal many of the suggestions in this thread.  They can't cause the body to regenerate or re-attach stuff.

So you would be left with no way to IC'ly remedy a lot of the suggested crippling disabilities.

Consent would remain.  Consent is not there because the interactions of the characters in maiming or torturing is in any way bad. Consent is there because such activity could trigger a player, outside of the intent of the interaction itself and specific to the personal circumstances of that player themselves. We have had players who did not feel the need to extend player to player courtesy to avoid this, and so we have had to implement a rule to require such courtesy.

[MeTekillot]

Add the ability to 'quit die' after a crippling attack from another character. Give them the following prompt.

Code Select Expand


You have been crippled. If you would prefer, you may 'quit die' within the next 10 minutes to instead die of the wound.


EDIT: I would still be fine with requiring consent in order to roleplay the gory details of the crippling.

[Veselka]

Quid pro quo: How do you differentiate between someone knocked out via Sparring/Non-Fatally and someone on the verge of death's door? Do they have to be literally on their way out to maim them?

I'd also interject a fun thing to ponder: whippings. Currently requires consent, but it's a coded means of adding both scars, and permanently damaging your PC (with no way to reverse that I'm aware of). As we already have this kind of code in place  (not to mention The Cuddler and other fun toys), would the ability to cripple a basically-dying person be that much of a stretch?

More than anything -- It's code, and code is work, and unless Staff were interested in it greatly, I don't think we'd see something like it soon.

[JohnMichaelHenry]

Vivaduans would not be able to heal many of the suggestions in this thread.  They can't cause the body to regenerate or re-attach stuff.

So you would be left with no way to IC'ly remedy a lot of the suggested crippling disabilities.

Knowing this changes things for me. If this is and would remain the case, I say no way. I'm gonna have to jump on board with Kryos. Sorry, Met.