Armageddon General Discussion Board

I have a real problem with the way capital punishment is being tossed around lately. Recent IG events have prompted me to speak out.

I believe that it is absolutely unnecessary to kill another PC just because they are acting out. In the vast majority of situations, I argue that there are always better and more interesting ways to deal with a problem than insta-death.

It seems to be that every time a character tries to react to a situation in an interesting manner, they are chopped down by the Templarate without a blink. Instead, why not arrest them? Torture them, maybe, or a public flogging to send a message? Or even just throw them in the arena and tell the citizens that this is what happens when you act out. Simply cutting a person down for doing something interesting will cause everyone to be boring all the time for fear of loosing their character in a quick and ridiculous manner.

I will always remember a character who was walking around Nak... lets just say, he was breaking the law. He was caught by a Templar but instead of just killing my character, the Templar scooped out one of his eyes. It was a crazy RP scene and I loved it. It was a fitting punishment for my character, but a rewarding experience for me as a player. I've never seen that kind of thing again. I question why this is.

I grant that may be simply missing the interesting ways people deal with these situations and only noticing the insta-death situations, but somehow I think that it is as big a problem as I am making it out to be. I'm not saying that insta-death is wrong. I'm saying that it's not interesting and it doesn't invoke interesting play whereas I am sure that we as a community -could- be doing something more interesting and handling this situations better.

What is everyone else's take on this? Do you think that capitial punishment is overused, or do you think it's just way the world is and is in fact, how it should be?

I think players in leadership roles agree with you about finding more interesting things to do than straight up kill people.
Every player I've seen cut down without warning in game has been at the hands of npc guards, players can't really be blamed when the crim code is tripped.  I have however seen nobles and militia show enormous amounts of restraint before finally resorting to punishment.

Players need to keep in mind that when caught by authority there are a lot of things you can do to ensure that you walk out alive or get some rp, including groveling, bribes, and so forth.

A lot of the time I don't think that people really consider situations from the perspective of authority figures.   There are a lot of things you can do to put their backs to the wall and force their hand, and it happens a lot.  In fact I'd go so far as to say it's hard to get killed inside Allanak without forcing the hand of an authority figure.

I agree entirely that avoiding capital punishment is ideal and I think you'll find that almost everyone in authority roles does too.

People playing criminals: Learn to act afraid, learn to grovel, bow, apologize and bribe.  It works.  Sneering, spitting and refusing to bow are all really good ways to get yourself in trouble.

You do not know what is going on behind the scenes.

And turn on no save. Though, if you're not commiting a crime you might not think of it.

I'm of two minds on this. I like a little brutal. I don't like losing pc's before I've really started them. It all works out though. I guess.

Resisting a militia subdue attempt--NPC or PC--is pretty much signing yourself up for Death By Cop.  NPCs will death-swarm you; PCs seem to have a little more leeway, but the force continuum in Allanak is rather...steep.

Staggerlee, I think your post was actually a lot more helpful than mine. Thank you for posting it.

I totally agree that there should be more coded options for leader pcs.  Right now, all they can do is kill you.

I wish you had the ability to chop off limbs.

I wish you had the ability to gouge out eyes.

I wish you had the ability to chop off fingers.

I wish you had the ability to permanently reduce people's health or endurance by injuries.

Currently, the only thing I can do to your character is kill you.

Quote from: mansa on March 02, 2008, 10:49:32 PM
Right now, all they can do is kill you.

That simply isn't true.

Quote from: mansa on March 02, 2008, 10:49:32 PM

I wish you had the ability to chop off limbs.

I wish you had the ability to gouge out eyes.

I wish you had the ability to chop off fingers.

This is all supported by the code.  The torture victim has to go get the scar on their own, but that isn't really an issue imho.  I suppose they could run around pretending they still have two eyes, but on the rare occasion that happened the staff can probably take care of it if they're so inclined. 

I don't really understand the problem.

You get caught, you die.  I mean...that's what makes the life of crime such a rush.

You screw up, even once, and there's an extremely high probability that you're going to see the mantis head.  I wouldn't have it any other way.

The only times as an authority figure that I have killed people has been when they have pretty much just forced it upon themselves.  I always, always prefer to torture, maim, humiliate, or do something otherwise nasty, but that does not cause the other player to lose a possibly beloved character.

However, there is a limit to how far you can allow yourself to be pushed, while playing an authority figure.  I am not going to step out of my character just to accommodate someone who is refusing to see the way things are going.  For instance, I once remember torturing someone who just kept going about it entirely unrealistically.  No begging, no pleading, no offers of bribes, nothing.  Torture torture torture... it was even -suggested- they might want to beg/plead/bribe, and ended up with some dead guy that simply refused to go with the flow of the scene.  In other instances, I have offered people second chances, only to have them keep doing the same dumb crap that got them in trouble in the first place... and then some other times, Powerz!From!Above say 'That guy has just pissed off Chosen Lord Fancypants too much, kill him,' and the player of Militia Jimbo just has to say 'Alright,' and cut someone's throat.

I think a lot of other players are like me in that I don't like killing players from an authority position.  I don't -want- to kill players from an authority position (because to me, that indicates something else has broken down).  But.  And this is a big but.  I don't expect you to step out of character so that you don't get killed, so please do not expect me to step out of character so that I don't have to kill you.

Players with access to incriminate can do some decent things via exile, too–otherwise known as 'execution by sandstorm code' or 'go play in Luir's, you jerk.'

Throwing someone out the gates and telling them never to come back is definitely a sweet and underused option. If they don't ever come back, well, problem solved from the templar's perspective, right?

Quote from: staggerlee on March 02, 2008, 10:57:15 PM

Quote from: mansa on March 02, 2008, 10:49:32 PM
Right now, all they can do is kill you.

That simply isn't true.

Quote from: mansa on March 02, 2008, 10:49:32 PM

I wish you had the ability to chop off limbs.

I wish you had the ability to gouge out eyes.

I wish you had the ability to chop off fingers.

This is all supported by the code.  The torture victim has to go get the scar on their own, but that isn't really an issue imho.  I suppose they could run around pretending they still have two eyes, but on the rare occasion that happened the staff can probably take care of it if they're so inclined. 

In my experience, I've never seen it.  I don't know how to type the commands to do so.  There is nothing in the documents about coded mutilation.   Nothing in the help files.  I guess, because I've never played a templar.

But I sure wish I could 'harm' someone without having to go 'mercy on';kill <target>;emote cuts off your leg; ooc your leg is cut off, now wish up.

I don't really feel any compunction not to kill people who deserve it.

Hell, once I killed/had killed 3 PCs in a single day, and you know what?  They all did something to deserve it.  Routinely giving second chances doesn't make the game more interesting or develop plotlines, or any of that crap:  it makes you a sucker who deserves to get rolled when that second chance comes back around to bite you in the ass.  The only thing I would stop at short of death for someone who -deserves- to die would be such a horrific mutilation that the character would end up being stored, anyway.

This is Armageddon, not happy-bunny-huggle land.

Every time a templar or noble comes in the room, your asshole should pucker up a little.  Nobody should expect to get off the hook with a little slap on the wrist just because they can emote well and are "important" to some nebulous, vaguely-defined plot.  If you screw up, you pay for it with your life.  It's that simple.  If you don't like your odds, then don't play that kind of character.  There are plenty of things you can do that will keep you comfortable, safe, worry-free, and far from the cruel edge of justice (whoever happens to be wielding it).

Synthesis is actually just about as right as you can get.

The reason he is right is because nobody plays characters who run in fear of other PCs for the rest of their life because they are scared. Sooner or later, they are going to get revenge. IRL, this is not the case, because mothafuckaz get scared and do not want to get revenge because they are scared of what will happen if they fail the revenge. In due time, in Armageddon, you will be able to get revenge through skill sets of influence. In real life, you generally have no way to get that revenge.

Therefore, in Armageddon, foes die, while IRL, foes get free passes and homies cross the str.

I love the death.

It's a brutal world. One mistake can get you killed because you're facing the perpetual dangers of Zalanthas every day. Mistakes mean death so you're only going to survive in this world is if you're good. If you can't beat them, join them. And on top of that, there's a multitude of other IC plots that could mean sudden or certain death for any one of our characters. I think the sooner you accept the fact that your character is going to die eventually from one of the several dangers of Zalanthas, the sooner you'll make a character who knows how to battle death itself.

Directing this to Rhyden's last statement: The person I truly fear, IG and IRL, is the one that has nothing to fear from death.

Having said this, I will add my own voice to those that would prefer to see something else besides "capitol punishment" being the norm for Commoner to Templar/Noble interactions.  This is a brutal world, sure, and swift death is totally in line with the way the world works, but I, personally, can't help but remember that it's also a game, and that by killing off this other character, I'm cutting short someone else's entertainment.  While of course you can write up another character concept within the hour of your last death (guilty of this when I first started out, and guilty of it when I've got a pre-made concept already made up), why not have the fun of keeping your character alive after having survived a potentially life changing scene or event?  Besides, as has been pointed out in the past, having enemies IG is one of the greatest things to RP.  Leaving a string of people behind you who have suffered at your hands sounds like a great way to make a few, to me.

Having said that, I will also point out that a death scene, if done right, can be one of the more enjoyable things about the game.  I had a favored character that was tortured rather brutally by Nilazi and what I assume was a vampire (couldn't see any of them), in an interrogation scene that ended with the character becoming a meal.  Was I upset over loosing the character?  Yes, I was, but I'd seen it coming and so felt just the regret of having lost the string of events that told the story of my character.  The ones who played out the scene did it well, asked if descriptive words could be used and if not, then glossing over everything was just fine, and once permission was obtained, let us know that if it got to far, they'd be the first ones to stop it.  It was responsible, it was well handled, it was one of the best times I've had while playing this game.

All and all, I guess I'm saying that more RP and trust in the "other guy" to make the situation, if not actively enjoyable, at least one that you'll eventually remember as something "cool" that happened to your character, and about which you can brag about on the GDB a year later.

Quote from: Pale Horse on March 03, 2008, 03:08:49 AM
Directing this to Rhyden's last statement: The person I truly fear, IG and IRL, is the one that has nothing to fear from death.

I'm not saying that at all but I definitely agree with you.

When I first started playing, I was scared spitless of templars; as far as I knew, they would gladly kill my character for the most trivial offense.

I no longer fear templars so much. :-\ Though I suspect that means I've reached the Second Level of Naïveté, rather than Enlightenment.

Quote from: Synthesis on March 03, 2008, 01:28:34 AM
This is Armageddon, not happy-bunny-huggle land.

Every time a templar or noble comes in the room, your asshole should pucker up a little.

Agreed.  If you think realistically, there are worse things than death. Things that will make other commoners' skin crawl in fear when they hear of it.  And if that punishment ends in a death, that's okay too 'cause the rp involved would have been interesting.

Quote from: The7DeadlyVenomz on March 03, 2008, 01:40:11 AM

The reason he is right is because nobody plays characters who run in fear of other PCs for the rest of their life because they are scared.

I tried to play such PC's, but failed because they got killed. I find it hard to believe I am supposedly the only one who doesn't mind playing some characters who just want to survive, and are not interested in twinking themselves up to the point where they might get lethal revenge. Surely there must be others out there.  ;)

As has been said before, in some situations, especially very public situations that involve many PCs and are linked to political workings, leaders often get backed to the wall to the point where they really have no realistic option other than killing. Especially when higher-ups are breathing down their neck, or they have to consider the 'greater good' for their city, their clan, or the ones most important to them.

My personal rules:

Death should be the last possible option for dealing with someone.*

*Unless they meet one of the many criteria for death as the first possible option when dealing with someone.

I really think it can't be a blanket statement for all leader/templar/noble PCs to use capital punishment less or more than they use it already.
Some of these have a lot of freedom to choose on a case by case basis to use capital punishment in response to an action.  Some don't have that freedom.

Quote from: Synthesis on March 03, 2008, 01:28:34 AM
I don't really feel any compunction not to kill people who deserve it.

Hell, once I killed/had killed 3 PCs in a single day, and you know what?  They all did something to deserve it.  Routinely giving second chances doesn't make the game more interesting or develop plotlines, or any of that crap:  it makes you a sucker who deserves to get rolled when that second chance comes back around to bite you in the ass.  The only thing I would stop at short of death for someone who -deserves- to die would be such a horrific mutilation that the character would end up being stored, anyway.

This is Armageddon, not happy-bunny-huggle land.

Every time a templar or noble comes in the room, your asshole should pucker up a little.  Nobody should expect to get off the hook with a little slap on the wrist just because they can emote well and are "important" to some nebulous, vaguely-defined plot.  If you screw up, you pay for it with your life.  It's that simple.  If you don't like your odds, then don't play that kind of character.  There are plenty of things you can do that will keep you comfortable, safe, worry-free, and far from the cruel edge of justice (whoever happens to be wielding it).

Synthesis took the words right out of my mouth.

I tend to go back and forth on this issue in my own head.

I agree that losing a character generally sucks, and it sucks even more when it's not through your own fault.

On the other hand, sudden, unexpected, and undeserved PvP deaths really do lend a lot of atmosphere to the game (for the survivors).  I don't think I believe it's necessarily that wrong (OOCly) for someone in a position of power to kill an innocent PC bystander as a demonstration.  Sure it sucks for that one poor player, but the rest of us are now terrified of that one powerful PC, and thus the game is more exciting.

Of course, on the other other hand... such demonstrations could be equally effective if said innocent PC was simply tortured and maimed instead and allowed to be a living monument of power and cruelty.

On the other other other hand... that can be pretty dangerous because, as has been mentioned, the chance of that wronged PC spending all his effort acquiring his own power and seeking revenge isn't insignificant.

It's a tricky issue.

However, for the moment I don't see undeserved PC death at the hands of those in power as a rampant problem.  I'd say there's about the right amount of it going on in the parts of the game I can view.

Quote from: Synthesis on March 03, 2008, 01:28:34 AM
This is Armageddon, not happy-bunny-huggle land.

Every time a templar or noble comes in the room, your asshole should pucker up a little.

I came in here to say this. Much thanks to Synthesis to saving me the effort.

Quote from: staggerlee on March 02, 2008, 09:35:20 PM
A lot of the time I don't think that people really consider situations from the perspective of authority figures.   There are a lot of things you can do to put their backs to the wall and force their hand, and it happens a lot.  In fact I'd go so far as to say it's hard to get killed inside Allanak without forcing the hand of an authority figure.

I agree entirely that avoiding capital punishment is ideal and I think you'll find that almost everyone in authority roles does too.

Emphasis mine. Oh yes indeedy it does. And otherwise also completely agreed.

Quote from: Yam on March 02, 2008, 09:39:57 PM
You do not know what is going on behind the scenes.

Absolutely true. Unless you are playing the authority figure, it's 100% likely you do not have the complete story as to what's happened, what solutions the authority figure has already tried, and what the remaining available options are.

Quote from: Shiroi Tsuki on March 03, 2008, 12:30:37 AM
However, there is a limit to how far you can allow yourself to be pushed, while playing an authority figure.

Playing an authority figure is very difficult, in the sense of balancing the OOC responsibilities to keep the flavor of the world correct (harsh, brutal, authority is final), and yet maintain playability of an area for the playerbase by not being overly harsh/brutal. It's a constant act of balancing on the razor's edge, and most of those who end up dead have had the opportunity to not end up dead.

There are characters alive in game right now who owe their continued existence to the fact that an authority figure did not choose to employ capital punishment when s/he could have.

And characters continue to die to authority figures as well.

I think the current level is fine and good.

I'm on par with Synthesis and 7DeadlyVenoms's comments. Zalanthas is a place where death tends to come early, and kids tend to grow up really fast. In my mind, the people of Zalanthas are also generally made of tougher stuff then the majority of we folks in IRL due to natural selection and survival of the fittest over the course of centuries. Life is cheap on Zalanthas, and there are alot of areas in the game where if you simply show your face, the only punishment is capital punishment. I've also seen the results of -not- doling out capital punishment driving big, melodramatic plots and lots of RP on the parts of whole clans. So in essence, there's a good balance throughout the entire game, and ultimately it's in the hands of the players in power to make the judgement call on their fellow players. Just beware you you go messing with!

Also.

When you see templar positions open on the gdb. Pay attention IG, when you see the new templar. LEAVE THE CITY AND DON"T COME BACK FOR LIKE 3 RL WEEKS!

And no, I'm not kidding. As a nearly fifteen year observation of templar PCs. Every  single templar player flexes that templar power. All of them. Without exception. It is an OOC motivation that I understand but prefer to not be party too.

Then add in what Gimf said. The player has to settle in and learn that balance. Normaly this happens inside of 2-3 weeks. either they have settled in or the PC no longer exists.

Quote from: X-D on March 03, 2008, 03:16:20 PM
And no, I'm not kidding. As a nearly fifteen year observation of templar PCs. Every  single templar player flexes that templar power. All of them. Without exception. It is an OOC motivation that I understand but prefer to not be party too.

In probably 90% of cases...and I'd throw in new nobles too...I heartily concur.

Is it an OOC thing?

I've never applied for a noble or templar position, and thus I don't know what the typical noble or templar background is like, but I suspect very often they're written as having an IC transition of some sort instead of just "*Poof!* I'm a PC now but I've been here all along virtually".

If that is the case, it makes sense for a character to wish to establish themselves and/or test what could be (based on background) newfound public power.

I played a noble and I think it's an OOC thing. Most of those stepping into noble/templar roles are (from what I've observed) first-time players of those roles, which are notably difficult to play. Players tend to vastly overestimate the actual power inherent in the role--as in, the actual power of the role is almost none (except that templars have the backing of crim code), but new nobles/templars think there IS some power. Power that is eventually gathered, if any, is 100% through roleplay...so "flexing your power"...is really not possible for n00bles, because there's none to flex.

Isn't exploring the limits of one's power/abilities/influence a very natural thing to do, though?

Quote from: Gimfalisette on March 03, 2008, 04:10:09 PM
... n00bles...

Ah... now that is delightful.  Thank you, Gimf.


Seeker

Quote from: Marauder Moe on March 03, 2008, 04:20:15 PM
Isn't exploring the limits of one's power/abilities/influence a very natural thing to do, though?

It's natural, but that doesn't mean it's IC rather than being OOC. For most nobles, they've had -some- kind of noble status/position/job responsibility within their House for X number of years previously, so they should be keenly aware of where they stand and how much power they do or do not have; and yet still we see them overreaching. Templars are similar.

This is why we see n00bles bullying senior GMH family members over minor issues, demanding bows/nods from commoners who are merely in some kind of proximity to them, overreacting to minor crimes or treating the victim as the criminal, threatening to have people executed for perceived insults, etc. I'm sure this is the kind of behavior X-D meant, and it's totally OOC because it's based on the player's misunderstanding of relative power, not the n00ble's actual IC experience/training.

And you're welcome, Seeker, even though someone else coined the term :)

To note, I feel qualified to criticize about new nobles/templars because I WAS one once, and I too did not understand how little power I actually had, and how dumb I looked doing some of the stuff I did. And I've played really closely to a lot of nobles and templars in my fairly short time on ARM and have seen the trends.

Well I meant a natural IC thing.  Maybe not for all circumstances, but quite possibly said noble or templar may not have held a public position before and ICly may not know how much power they actually have.  Just because it matches an OOC lack of knowledge doesn't make it an OOC problem.   :P

A show of power with no actual power behind it makes the show-er look a little silly. ;)

(Amos, what'd you do to make Lord Fancypants grumpy? Yeh, well, stay away from him, he's tetchy. We aren't doin' no more orders for him, anyway; too much trouble.)

What's wrong with looking silly?

To bring the answer back around to the original topic of discussion (ooh closure-ish), when new nobles/templars overestimate their own actual power and do things that "look silly," these things are usually also experienced as abusive and plain dumb by the playerbase, which causes players to want to avoid those nobles/templars as X-D does, by leaving the city altogether. The nastiness continues as the new noble/templar finds that their current rep of retardation leads to the following effects: No one wants to play with him/her, commoners generally avoid contact with them, they're unable to find employees, they may be unable to get or inspire productive work from pre-existing employees, there may be an inability to make profitable/constructive deals with the game's other apped leaders. This leads to major frustration and the n00ble becomes tempted to store.

THAT is what is wrong with looking silly. Starting off on the wrong foot rarely leads to good things and is pretty hard to overcome, actually.

If, for example, a new templar in Allanak stepped into the role and caught a pickpocket for a minor crime and decided a public execution was the right thing to do, despite the thief's pleas to get off and offers to bribe...that would be a pretty typical thing for a n00ble to do and well within the LEGAL RIGHTS of the character, but it's not doing them or the game any good.

Quote from: Gimfalisette on March 03, 2008, 05:05:43 PM
If, for example, a new templar in Allanak stepped into the role and caught a pickpocket for a minor crime and decided a public execution was the right thing to do, despite the thief's pleas to get off and offers to bribe...that would be a pretty typical thing for a n00ble to do and well within the LEGAL RIGHTS of the character, but it's not doing them or the game any good.

This sentiment more than any other best describes what I perceive as the OP's issue with capital punishment.  I don't think anyone is asking for a safer, happier, nicer Zalanthas.  What the OP is observing is the trend of certain authority figures to choose execution over other viable options, especially when the situation doesn't necessarily warrant such an extreme option.

There may be times when "behind the scenes" events warrant the execution, but I don't think we're necessarily discussing that situation.  We're discussing the situations where authority figures (i.e. templars, nobles) find themselves in a situation where they hold a character's life in their hands.  And generally that position has not come as a result of the templar being personally opposed to that person, but most often because that's a templar's job. 

A thief caught stealing by the templarate should blame themselves ten times more than the templar who found them, because it's understood that templars are there to catch criminals.  That relationship should be a given, and thieves/assassins/spies should be no more opposed to a templar that has punished them than to a templar that hasn't yet had the opportunity.  As if there were a templar out there that would witness you fail a steal attempt in public and not do something about it.

What I perceive the OP as saying is this -- If you are the player of an authority figure, such as a templar or noble, that has the ability to impose punishments on PC's, whether it's part of your job or not, take care and grant the situation the proper consideration with the understanding that allowing someone to live may create a far better story than their execution could ever achieve.

No one is asking you to shy away from violence, ruthlessness, sadism, or harsh play.  Just make sure that you're killing someone because it makes the story better, and not simply because you "can".

-LoD

Gimf and LoD have it exactly right. Makes me happy there are people more articulate in print then me.

I would also like to add that We, as players have no past to work on with said noobles, no matter what kind of backround they have written. The fact is they still have simply POOFED into the world.

If I or my PC has to interact with a certain very old jihaen or a certain red robe, I have a good idea what the IC history is, I have a good idea how my PC should act, and how they will act.

You do not have this with Noobles. The only history you have to work on is from OTHER past noobles (man I love that word) and history teaches that noobles tend to flex in a manner that is often a detriment to your pc and often the game. And you know the old saying about doom and history.

I could post literally hundreds of times where this is the case. Where a nooble has started and within days taken out some very old, active plot forming PCs only to themselves be gone/dead/stored days later.

As to the other part of the conversation. as Gimf and others have stated, Too many times the person in power is actually forced, often by the  "victem" to resort to execution. But at the same time, it is often the fault of the person in power for making such a big deal of what is normaly something minor to begin with.

When you come down to it. Simply the idea that a commoner CAN insult a noble/templar is silly. They do not rank high enough socialy to matter that much. Of course they hate you, of course they envy you, they are worms, you are gods. You cannot be insulted by a worm. But you still need them to keep the dirt of your beloved garden healthy.

When a templar or noble shows anger etc from some slight from a commoner they only bring themselves back down to commoner/human level in the eyes of the masses.  Ignore it then have your aide hire some thugs to break his knees later.

To be very plainly honest: Even though I have been privileged to work alongside some extremely well-played nobles and templars and merchants, for all the above reasons the feature of 2.ARM that I am most happily anticipating is the dismantling of the apped leadership system. I realize there will be apped leaders here and there as necessary, and there will be some NPC leadership, but for the most part leadership will be a start-at-the-ground-floor kind of thing. And I think that will be really, really good for the game.

Yeah. There is nothing like earning leadership, as opposed to having it handed to you.

Quote from: Gimfalisette on March 03, 2008, 06:02:44 PM
To be very plainly honest: Even though I have been privileged to work alongside some extremely well-played nobles and templars and merchants, for all the above reasons the feature of 2.ARM that I am most happily anticipating is the dismantling of the apped leadership system. I realize there will be apped leaders here and there as necessary, and there will be some NPC leadership, but for the most part leadership will be a start-at-the-ground-floor kind of thing. And I think that will be really, really good for the game.

I totally agree. I can't wait for these type of leadership roles.

But most of the highest leadership positions in the current Zalanthas -are- handed to you.

Thanks LoD, you hit the nail on the head.

Leadership roles in Arm are handed to you, though, because Zalanthas (or at least Allanak and Tuluk) are not meant to have that much social mobility.

A neat compromise would have been to have most templars start as a templar-in-training at some sub-rank and working for a more experienced mentor–or similarly, to require most nobles to start at a young enough age and low enough standing that their behaviour wasn't quite so jarring. But it's a little late for that. I am definitely in X-D's camp as far as avoiding new authority figures like the plague goes, at any rate; the powerful ones are ironically the ones who power-trip the least. It's a sort of self-filtering system, in the end: authority figures who suddenly show up and lord over PCs who should, realistically, be beneath their care and notice just quickly earn themselves reputations for being stupid assholes. They then get avoided until they retire out of boredom.

On the positive side: each city right now has an experienced, high-ranking templar PC who exudes authority without having to mutilate ignorant newbies. They are fine examples.

Quote from: LoD on March 03, 2008, 05:28:41 PM
If you are the player of an authority figure, such as a templar or noble, that has the ability to impose punishments on PC's, whether it's part of your job or not, take care and grant the situation the proper consideration with the understanding that allowing someone to live may create a far better story than their execution could ever achieve.

No one is asking you to shy away from violence, ruthlessness, sadism, or harsh play.  Just make sure that you're killing someone because it makes the story better, and not simply because you "can".

Rather than writing out a separate post, I'll just quote LoD here and agree with him and everyone who has expressed similar sentiments.

The sentiment also applies to more than just "noobles" (haaaa), but to other authority figures as well. Desert elves raiding or defending territory, roving rogue mages of d00m, crime lords, and anybody else with the power to PK hapless PCs with the misfortune of wandering into or living in their domain. With templars and nobles it's just far more obvious due to the fact that the roles are so highly visible.

I wish there was a "suggested reading" helpfile that helps people in power positions deal with others, with specific exampls as to what they can and should do.

I'd like to see it, back when I was running a leader in the Guild, or when I was a leader in Kadius...

Quote from: Gimfalisette on March 03, 2008, 05:05:43 PM
To bring the answer back around to the original topic of discussion (ooh closure-ish), when new nobles/templars overestimate their own actual power and do things that "look silly," these things are usually also experienced as abusive and plain dumb by the playerbase, which causes players to want to avoid those nobles/templars as X-D does, by leaving the city altogether. The nastiness continues as the new noble/templar finds that their current rep of retardation leads to the following effects: No one wants to play with him/her, commoners generally avoid contact with them, they're unable to find employees, they may be unable to get or inspire productive work from pre-existing employees, there may be an inability to make profitable/constructive deals with the game's other apped leaders. This leads to major frustration and the n00ble becomes tempted to store.

Quoted for awesomeness.

I dare claim this is also why the trader's inn is on average more empty than it should be. Bored n00bles sitting there waiting for someone to make a minor mistake.

Duh double post. Didn't notice until now.  >:(

I agree with Gimf and LoD...

I really can't understand people who say that if you don't kill someone you're setting yourself up for failure.  As someone else pointed out, having enemies drives plots and creates conflict... Which is fun.  Furthermore, you can do things (with staff assistance, of course) to pretty much any character to reduce their threat level.  There is always going to be some extreme that needs to be eliminated, but if you take (chop off) the dominant hand of the average city-elf pickpocket he's probably going to learn a very serious lesson...

:-\

I will say this once and only once and only here.

If your powerbase is so insecure that you feel for a petty crime you must execute to avoid revenge, you shouldn't be executing anyone. Templars are no exceptions.

I agree with Gimf on this one. I've had a few Templars and a noble. My first Templar was a bitch. It was a bit different when you're actually -in- the role versus looking at it from the outside, and you do tend to 'power' through the first little bit as you find where you stand and what you can do. In general though, and most who have played with me can attest to it, I hate PKing characters unless I am absolutely forced to do so. To a fault even, given that I have over twenty dead characters in the span of like two years and I -still- see some PC's alive that I let of the hook back then.  ;)

As to 'lowering' themselves to notice petty crimes or react to etiquette mistakes and the like, that really depends on the Nobles mood, House of origin or the Templars desire to shake you down for coin. If I see a Fale ripping on a commoner for fashion, thats IC to me, not ooc lowering themselves. If I see a Lyksae beating the crap out of a commoner verbally for not showing due respect, or the like..That would be IC to me as well since that PC would be accustomed to order and discipline. Yes, of course their are plenty of exceptions, but its a fine line. That's my sids on it.

Bah. Off with their heads.

Don't get me wrong; I think templars should give people the chance to weasel out of things, especially minor things. Theft, unruly behavior, slander and blasphemy, probably even some murder. But if they're a magicker? If they're a traitor? If they're a crimelord or known assassin or something? Then kill them.

'But you cut short their enjoyment!' they all cry. Well, duh. We all get our enjoyment 'cut short' someday. Death is inevitable, and doubly so on Zalanthas. And better to die in a well-played public execution scene with another player than to fall down a cliff or die to Scrab #134. Everybody dies. You might as well do it in a log-worthy way.

The alternative- templars bending and twisting to accomodate players' OOC aversion to death- makes for shitty, shitty roleplay. There's one instance in particular that still makes me cringe. This total n00b was mouthing off in the Gaj, screaming about how unfair the templarate was, refusing to bow, etc. The templar present just stood there and took it. Instead of peeling his skin off like any self-respecting civil servant would, the templar decided not to kill the offender because A) PKing is 'bad' and B) he wanted to educate the n00b, I guess.

What was the n00b's punishment? The templar forced a nearby Byn Sergeant to accept him into the Byn! That's right- his punishment was frickin' employment. This was back when the Byn was widely considered The Newbie Training Clan, so the templar was clearly trying to be a good guy, in an OOC sense. But do you want to know what happened? That character marched with me to the Byn compound (I was playing a Trooper at the time), still bitching and moaning about how unfair the templars are. He logged out that night, and I never saw him again. He probably quit, anad good riddance.

All that was accomplished in that scene was that the templar looked like an OOC-motivated pansy, and he had to break character to do it. And, honestly? If he had just tortured and killed the n00b, and if he did it well enough, the n00b might've kept playing. He might've had his first ever 'wow' moment, even if it cost him his first character. If nothing else, all those present would've gotten some sort of enjoyment out of it.

Exile, torture, and so on are perfectly fine, but if an idiot clearly wants to die, please just kill them.

Quote from: FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit on March 05, 2008, 01:06:21 PM
'But you cut short their enjoyment!' they all cry. Well, duh. We all get our enjoyment 'cut short' someday. Death is inevitable, and doubly so on Zalanthas. And better to die in a well-played public execution scene with another player than to fall down a cliff or die to Scrab #134. Everybody dies. You might as well do it in a log-worthy way.

I understand the sense of your post and I am not disagreeing with it. However, having been killed on numerous occasions and been mauled, tortured, etc I have come to the conclusion that giving the offending player something to work with and continue out the RP with a certain set of repercussions is infinitely more fun to RP. Death is just to permanent (obviously). Too easy in  many respects. You mess up you die.

The other interesting thing is that while everyone has mentioned in passing in one form or another the OOC component to all of this, there clearly is one. The comment that newbie Templars and Nobles want to throw their weight around the first few weeks is a real problem. I got the short end of the stick on one of those. I am not mad but it was counter productive to character development and some longer term stories that could have resulted from a different outcome other than death.

Random IC death at the hands of a brutal templar or any character for that reason should be used sparingly. Why? Because you can't just shit out a character concept, description, and background and get approved soon enough to keep your enjoyment level for the game at a high level. I know when I got killed by that one character, I left the game for a few months because I had to think about my concept, wait, and then try and get into character. I am a bad RPer I guess because it usually takes me a few weeks to plug into my character and really get a feel for him. Since I have another game I play in, it was too easy for me just to go to that other game and RP and have some enjoyment in my limited downtime. I eventually got back into a new character and was into Arm again, but months after the death of that one character.

So go ahead, random kill, kill indiscriminately, do whatever the hell you want. Honestly. Have fun. Chaos rules. Whoohoo!

Just dont be surprised at the OOC consequences of those things. They are real. I am an example of what happened. Another friend of my was the same way. It is hard for me to really get into my characters now because the threat of death is so real that I dont put the emotional investment into them as I perhaps need to. So when RL winds come blowing, guess what falls off the radar screen for me?

Armageddon.

Armageddon:  No Country for Crybabies.

After putting together 65+ characters, hey...it's a breeze.

Death...you'll get over it.

Quote from: Synthesis on March 06, 2008, 04:48:59 PM
Armageddon:  No Country for Crybabies.

After putting together 65+ characters, hey...it's a breeze.

Death...you'll get over it.

Do you even know what I am saying? How about reading my post instead of THINKING you know what point I am trying to make?

Obviously you have a reading problem...

Basically, you said you can't be assed to come up with another character concept, and I expressed my overwhelming lack of sympathy for your plight.

Quote from: Synthesis on March 06, 2008, 04:54:15 PM
Basically, you said you can't be assed to come up with another character concept, and I expressed my overwhelming lack of sympathy for your plight.

I will give you a version you can read:

-There is more to RP when you aren't killed (Death=End of that RP for that character)

-It takes me time to get into my character because I try and make each unique (besides the overhead of getting a character made and approved)

Calling me a crybaby...dude, that is just lame.

Hey, Arillion. I read all your posts all the way through, and I can understand where you're coming from. I hope you don't mind if I use the 'short version' for brevity's sake.

Quote-There is more to RP when you aren't killed (Death=End of that RP for that character)

Ah... you assume there is more RP when you aren't killed. For all you know, if that templar hadn't spared you, your poor liltte character might've been eaten by a scrab the very next day.

That actually happened to me once. My Whiran was captured by some Evil Things. The Evil Things were considering eating him, but they decided to enslave him instead. Great opportunity for roleplay, right? I certainly thought so. But then I went and fell into the Sea of Silt later that week, because I'm a freaking dumbass.

It later occured to me that things would've been a lot more interesting, a lot more satisfying, if the Evil Things had just offed me. And you know what? It probably would've advanced their Evil Plot a whole lot more.

Now, obviously, this was a silly mistake on my part, and I don't mean to imply that your pre-maturely slaughtered characters would've been scrab food the next day. But what I'm saying is that it's false to assume that sparing a person from death leads to 'more' or 'better' RP. While it might be the 'end' of RP for one character, it could seriously enrich the experiences of innumerable others. Some of my favorite RP scenes have been good deaths, good murders, moments of heart-pounding danger, public executions, and the like. You might've gotten the short end of the stick in your particular scene, but the templar who killed you and anyone who witnessed it might very well look back on it fondly.

And, think about it... if everyone was spared all of the time (or even if most people were spared most of the time), most of them would eventually wind up dying to scrabs or insta-death rooms or linkdeath or some random twink mage or assassin running around. Everybody's got to go somehow; it's either that, or storge, and both are pretty anti-climactic, don't you think?

Quote-It takes me time to get into my character because I try and make each unique (besides the overhead of getting a character made and approved)

This sounds like a personal problem to me. I'm afraid I can't really do much beyond sympathize, and maybe offer some character creation tips.

Just as an aside the punishments other than death should not equal death. Like cutting of a swordsman's arms or a bard's tongue, or throwing people into the sands with no hope of survival. Better to cut out the swordsman's tongue and the bard's feet.

Quote from: Barzalene on March 06, 2008, 07:42:10 PM
Just as an aside the punishments other than death should not equal death. Like cutting of a swordsman's arms or a bard's tongue, or throwing people into the sands with no hope of survival. Better to cut out the swordsman's tongue and the bard's feet.

I think a fighter stripped of their arm or a bard torn from their tongue are both pretty cool character developments, rather than role play depriving.

I suppose it all depends on how you look at it.

Quote from: Rhyden on March 06, 2008, 07:50:58 PM

Quote from: Barzalene on March 06, 2008, 07:42:10 PM
Just as an aside the punishments other than death should not equal death. Like cutting of a swordsman's arms or a bard's tongue, or throwing people into the sands with no hope of survival. Better to cut out the swordsman's tongue and the bard's feet.

I think a fighter stripped of their arm or a bard torn from their tongue are both pretty cool character developments, rather than role play depriving.

I suppose it all depends on how you look at it.

It could be. But if you're playing a warrior because you really felt like running around with a big old sword and just playing something without too many complications it can be more developed than you hoped.

Or if you decided to play a bard because you really wanted to sing in taverns, losing your tongue might open up new doors, but deprive you of the opportunity to play the character you apped.

It still all depends, Barzalene.

I wouldn't want a nooble templar cutting out a freshly-made PC bard's tongue because they called them a Lord instead of Lady.

However, if said PC was a developed character and pissed said templar off once too many times, yeah, I could see some tongue removal.

At least they didn't kill you, which according to the original poster, happens all too frequently.  ;)

Quote from: Rhyden on March 06, 2008, 08:07:03 PM
It still all depends, Barzalene.

I wouldn't want a nooble templar cutting out a freshly-made PC bard's tongue because they called them a Lord instead of Lady.

However, if said PC was a developed character and pissed said templar off once too many times, yeah, I could see some tongue removal.

At least they didn't kill you, which according to the original poster, happens all too frequently.  ;)

I was envisioning the first scenario, not the second. If your long lived pc is going out of their way to piss off the powerful, I say take what lumps you get and enjoy them.

Quote from: Arillion on March 06, 2008, 02:58:45 PM

Quote from: FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit on March 05, 2008, 01:06:21 PM
'But you cut short their enjoyment!' they all cry. Well, duh. We all get our enjoyment 'cut short' someday. Death is inevitable, and doubly so on Zalanthas. And better to die in a well-played public execution scene with another player than to fall down a cliff or die to Scrab #134. Everybody dies. You might as well do it in a log-worthy way.

I understand the sense of your post and I am not disagreeing with it. However, having been killed on numerous occasions and been mauled, tortured, etc I have come to the conclusion that giving the offending player something to work with and continue out the RP with a certain set of repercussions is infinitely more fun to RP. Death is just to permanent (obviously). Too easy in  many respects. You mess up you die.

The other interesting thing is that while everyone has mentioned in passing in one form or another the OOC component to all of this, there clearly is one. The comment that newbie Templars and Nobles want to throw their weight around the first few weeks is a real problem. I got the short end of the stick on one of those. I am not mad but it was counter productive to character development and some longer term stories that could have resulted from a different outcome other than death.

Random IC death at the hands of a brutal templar or any character for that reason should be used sparingly. Why? Because you can't just shit out a character concept, description, and background and get approved soon enough to keep your enjoyment level for the game at a high level. I know when I got killed by that one character, I left the game for a few months because I had to think about my concept, wait, and then try and get into character. I am a bad RPer I guess because it usually takes me a few weeks to plug into my character and really get a feel for him. Since I have another game I play in, it was too easy for me just to go to that other game and RP and have some enjoyment in my limited downtime. I eventually got back into a new character and was into Arm again, but months after the death of that one character.

So go ahead, random kill, kill indiscriminately, do whatever the hell you want. Honestly. Have fun. Chaos rules. Whoohoo!

Just dont be surprised at the OOC consequences of those things. They are real. I am an example of what happened. Another friend of my was the same way. It is hard for me to really get into my characters now because the threat of death is so real that I dont put the emotional investment into them as I perhaps need to. So when RL winds come blowing, guess what falls off the radar screen for me?

Armageddon.

I totally agree.

Quote from: FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit on March 06, 2008, 06:22:34 PM
Hey, Arillion. I read all your posts all the way through, and I can understand where you're coming from. I hope you don't mind if I use the 'short version' for brevity's sake.

Quote-There is more to RP when you aren't killed (Death=End of that RP for that character)

Ah... you assume there is more RP when you aren't killed. For all you know, if that templar hadn't spared you, your poor liltte character might've been eaten by a scrab the very next day.

That actually happened to me once. My Whiran was captured by some Evil Things. The Evil Things were considering eating him, but they decided to enslave him instead. Great opportunity for roleplay, right? I certainly thought so. But then I went and fell into the Sea of Silt later that week, because I'm a freaking dumbass.

It later occured to me that things would've been a lot more interesting, a lot more satisfying, if the Evil Things had just offed me. And you know what? It probably would've advanced their Evil Plot a whole lot more.

Now, obviously, this was a silly mistake on my part, and I don't mean to imply that your pre-maturely slaughtered characters would've been scrab food the next day. But what I'm saying is that it's false to assume that sparing a person from death leads to 'more' or 'better' RP. While it might be the 'end' of RP for one character, it could seriously enrich the experiences of innumerable others. Some of my favorite RP scenes have been good deaths, good murders, moments of heart-pounding danger, public executions, and the like. You might've gotten the short end of the stick in your particular scene, but the templar who killed you and anyone who witnessed it might very well look back on it fondly.

And, think about it... if everyone was spared all of the time (or even if most people were spared most of the time), most of them would eventually wind up dying to scrabs or insta-death rooms or linkdeath or some random twink mage or assassin running around. Everybody's got to go somehow; it's either that, or storge, and both are pretty anti-climactic, don't you think?

Quote-It takes me time to get into my character because I try and make each unique (besides the overhead of getting a character made and approved)

This sounds like a personal problem to me. I'm afraid I can't really do much beyond sympathize, and maybe offer some character creation tips.

FDM, You feel that it would have been better if the evil thing killed you on the spot.  I definitely disagree. 

It was a personal decision to kill yourself in the silt sea.  Nobody put you there.  You did it yourself.

When you kill others, you are removing them from playing the game.  When you kill yourself due to an NPC, you are removing yourself from the game.


Other players don't make that decision when you kill them.  You are making it for them.  I think you're point is off.  Sorry.

As to losing limbs, hey you don't die, regardless what kind of character you are. And if as a player keeping into the role of a gimped warrior doesn't suit you, eh, store or suicide.

Seen a few chars with missing limps/appendages/eyes/tongues that have lived quite a while with such disabilities, and still manage to have fun. (at least from what I can see)

Quote from: Barzalene on March 06, 2008, 07:42:10 PM
Just as an aside the punishments other than death should not equal death. Like cutting of a swordsman's arms or a bard's tongue, or throwing people into the sands with no hope of survival. Better to cut out the swordsman's tongue and the bard's feet.

I don't know, cutting off any PC's feet pretty much equals death or storage in my book. A tongue-less bard could still play instruments and use the way, but a character without feet would be locked into solo roleplay unless they have some very solid, very available support from others.

Quote from: Akaramu on March 07, 2008, 06:10:04 AM

Quote from: Barzalene on March 06, 2008, 07:42:10 PM
Just as an aside the punishments other than death should not equal death. Like cutting of a swordsman's arms or a bard's tongue, or throwing people into the sands with no hope of survival. Better to cut out the swordsman's tongue and the bard's feet.

I don't know, cutting off any PC's feet pretty much equals death or storage in my book. A tongue-less bard could still play instruments and use the way, but a character without feet would be locked into solo roleplay unless they have some very solid, very available support from others.

Find a wagonmaker. Commission him to make a wheelchair. Have a grand old time.  ;D

Welcome to Armageddon!

*smacking keyboard*

??? ???

edit: Yer mom!

Quote from: Qzzrbl on March 07, 2008, 08:15:33 AM

Quote from: Akaramu on March 07, 2008, 06:10:04 AM

Quote from: Barzalene on March 06, 2008, 07:42:10 PM
Just as an aside the punishments other than death should not equal death. Like cutting of a swordsman's arms or a bard's tongue, or throwing people into the sands with no hope of survival. Better to cut out the swordsman's tongue and the bard's feet.

I don't know, cutting off any PC's feet pretty much equals death or storage in my book. A tongue-less bard could still play instruments and use the way, but a character without feet would be locked into solo roleplay unless they have some very solid, very available support from others.

Find a wagonmaker. Commission him to make a wheelchair. Have a grand old time.  ;D

Have a grand old time waiting for a wagonmaker for 3-5 months irl.

Quote from: Melody on November 21, 2008, 12:30:03 AM

Quote from: Qzzrbl on March 07, 2008, 08:15:33 AM

Quote from: Akaramu on March 07, 2008, 06:10:04 AM

Quote from: Barzalene on March 06, 2008, 07:42:10 PM
Just as an aside the punishments other than death should not equal death. Like cutting of a swordsman's arms or a bard's tongue, or throwing people into the sands with no hope of survival. Better to cut out the swordsman's tongue and the bard's feet.

I don't know, cutting off any PC's feet pretty much equals death or storage in my book. A tongue-less bard could still play instruments and use the way, but a character without feet would be locked into solo roleplay unless they have some very solid, very available support from others.

Find a wagonmaker. Commission him to make a wheelchair. Have a grand old time.  ;D

Have a grand old time waiting for a wagonmaker for 3-5 months irl.

Not since the new flavor of the month class on Armageddon is merchant  ;)

I see merchants popping in everywhere!

Oh, that and the tribal accent.

Quote from: Malken on November 21, 2008, 12:54:28 AM

Not since the new flavor of the month class on Armageddon is merchant  ;)

I'm missing a FOTM? Damnit. I like my character though.

Quote from: Riev on November 21, 2008, 12:57:00 AM

Quote from: Malken on November 21, 2008, 12:54:28 AM

Not since the new flavor of the month class on Armageddon is merchant  ;)

I'm missing a FOTM? Damnit. I like my character though.

Yah, man, didn't you hear? They totally nerfed rangers and assassins with that stun thing (We all know that the Staff only plays magickers) and boosted the merchant class with some shortcut command.

And I hear that the tribal accent gives you +5 to your crafting skills.

Why are you guys shitting up a good thread?

Malken, Riev, Melody, Versu?  I'm looking in your direction.

Oop. Good point.


I've been lucky enough, so far, to avoid a confrontation with leaders and needing to resort to punishments, but the ones I've -seen- or -heard of- never seemed to go towards killing someone. Had the ones I'd seen end up in killing, it would have been too much. I agree that if you are a templar, and someone is stupid enough to blatantly break a law in front of you and get caught... -not- bribing them is a sure way to end up killed. I wouldn't expect any RP from a templar that I didn't at least -try- to beg or plead, because it is just as much up to the player, in these situations, to inform that they would LIKE to RP, if possible.

Rarely have I seen someone actually say, OOC, that they would like to turn no save on, if it would help the torture or the RP. I guess, perhaps, I havn't seen enough?

Quote from: mansa on November 21, 2008, 01:10:40 AM
Why are you guys shitting up a good thread?

Malken, Riev, Melody, Versu?  I'm looking in your direction.

Look away. I am just making a perfectly serious (serious!) comment on wagon makers' availability.

I agree with others. Killing is overused, because it is so much easier than thinking up creative tortures. And frankly, easier ic as well.

I don't see templar abusing their authority as much as criminal lords and such. After all, far easier to avoid templars than criminals.

I've never actually seen templars kill anyone. I've seen lots and lots of threats from templars to sentence a person to death or chop off their limbs.. heck, I've heard they do that, but never seen it happen. It's how the law should be.. people avoid doing the crime in fear that they'll get killed. But nobody really gets killed.. it just feels that way.

The templars have been doing a damn good job!

 :( I miss Templar Hardnose.

I agree killing can be overused, but in some circumstances I do think templars should go with the moment. I mean if the guy's pretty much asking for being killed, do it.

And I can remember some instances where someone being killed was a real pivotal moment to rp I've been involved in. If there hadn't been that death, other events wouldn't have started. I know that's small comfort to the player whose character died, but let's face it, Zalanthas is all about these kind of things.

QuoteEvery time a templar or noble comes in the room, your asshole should pucker up a little.  Nobody should expect to get off the hook with a little slap on the wrist just because they can emote well and are "important" to some nebulous, vaguely-defined plot.  If you screw up, you pay for it with your life.  It's that simple.  If you don't like your odds, then don't play that kind of character.  There are plenty of things you can do that will keep you comfortable, safe, worry-free, and far from the cruel edge of justice (whoever happens to be wielding it).

qft.

Also, I would like to point out that there are times when death is the necessary and logical end result. There should be people and organizations that you are afraid of pissing off (not just templars and nobles), and you should -expect- death as a result of doing so.

It will certainly make trying to live without getting caught alone and in the dark a lot more interesting.

The Underworld: Tips and Tricks.

1. Don't go around ganking npcs. They're generally protected by one faction or another.

2. Hang out in the tavern and familiarize yourself with the powerbase. Smile once and awhile.

3. Tourists generally aren't welcome.  You've been warned.

4. Don't get caught. If you do, expect to die.

There's a big difference between killing someone for being an idiot, and looking for an idiot to kill.

Quote from: Ampere on November 24, 2008, 05:54:16 PM
The Underworld: Tips and Tricks.

1. Don't go around ganking npcs. They're generally protected by one faction or another.

2. Hang out in the tavern and familiarize yourself with the powerbase. Smile once and awhile.

3. Tourists generally aren't welcome.  You've been warned.

4. Don't get caught. If you do, expect to die.

There's a big difference between killing someone for being an idiot, and looking for an idiot to kill.

To add to #4:

If you get caught, don't play the tough guy and expect to still live. Favours, bribes, services, and groveling go a long way toward keeping yourself alive if you get caught. Sadly, the response I've usually witnessed is a combination of defiance, refusal to talk if talking is the goal of the scenario, spitting in faces, trying to escape, etc.

There are ways to stay alive even if you get caught, but don't expect to be shown any mercy if you mouth off to the people who caught you or if you don't cooperate.

What Fathi said times a thousand, heh.

Every time someone's been PKed by me - seriously, every single time, bar none - I've had every intent of letting them go with a roughing up, a mugging, or a stern warning. People tend to dig their own graves when faced with things like powerful raiders, powerful social PCs, and powerful criminal figures. If I had someone subdued to drag them off to my hideout and they DIDN'T spam escape and run off into unknown territory while shouting obscenities at me verbally as well as via the Way, I wouldn't have to end them. That, and I'd be completely shocked.

Conversely, I've had 2 PCs who were PKed despite massive quantities of begging, pleading, groveling, and a fervent intent to do whatever the other PC wanted if their life was spared. I also had another PC who was PKed completely without warning or any chance to avoid the death, in a situation where I know the other player knows I'm someone who can be trusted to roleplay.

I continue to believe that the responsibility mostly lies with those who are in the position of victimizer, rather than with the victim.

Quote from: Gimfalisette on November 24, 2008, 07:35:32 PM
Conversely, I've had 2 PCs who were PKed despite massive quantities of begging, pleading, groveling, and a fervent intent to do whatever the other PC wanted if their life was spared. I also had another PC who was PKed completely without warning or any chance to avoid the death, in a situation where I know the other player knows I'm someone who can be trusted to roleplay.

I continue to believe that the responsibility mostly lies with those who are in the position of victimizer, rather than with the victim.

I agree; but you must also agree that any promise made under duress is suspect. Unless someone can vouch to their character, and take responsibility should they renege, they're dead.  This does not apply to the little people, they're free to go, for a price.

A recommendation to the leadership people who go into a scene knowing that they are going to do other RP-ish things rather than kill - as though you don't have enough backseat drivers on the boards, but bear with me - don't let me know that you're one of the people who wants to let me live.  Without a challenge, there's no game, and I quite like trying to ICly survive against all odds, even if they're already stacked in my favor.  ;)

I don't really think its overused at all. If it was, there wouldn't be no less then 15 ridiculously long-lived PCs who constantly stir the shit still alive IG right now.

Last time I was caught by a PC templar for being a pick pocket, the templar wanted an ungodly amount of coin, 2000, or he would kill me. He killed me.
I think it is overused on me. I try to squirm out of it, offer bribes, offer service, and they just want some ungodly amount.

He wanted 2000 and emoted looking at my stone axe that I could use to hack some 'sid, but I just stole it. I told him I stole it, but my 700 coin and service were not good enough.

Come to think of it, the last 3 times I have interacted, at all, with a templar, has gotten me killed.

Given, 2 PCs were to one templar in a 72 hour period. They were each doing completely different jobs, but hey, what do you know.

It's good to see PCs living longer.

Enmities, friendships, and/or complicated relationships born of years of overt and/or hidden struggle (against or alongside each other) can actually form, last, and eventually, shatter...

Not to say you shouldn't off somebody when needed, but 9 out of 10, there's a more interesting, creative way to go about things.

There have only been a few templars I've appreciated the overall roleplay of. But I do have to say that all the templars I've played with have actually shied away from capital punishment after enough groveling. Which I do appreciate, I guess.

If a templar hadn't of killed one of my more recent players(and just played awesomely all together) I would have missed out on one of the best Arm experiences I've ever had.

I don't believe Capital Punishment is overused at all, honestly.

There is a lot of advice in this thread.  Much of it is thought provoking.

One thing that I think few people should keep in mind is that just because someone else is playing a powerful criminal, raider, or political figure doesn't mean that they're 100% versed in the dealings with killing, capturing, or punishing PC's.  These things have to be learned just like we learn to rest our mounts while we skin a tandu and to carry extra antidoes when we go places where there are poisonous critters.

The code doesn't always work the way we think it will.  Sometimes a quirk in the mercy code sends someone to the mantis head on accident instead of critically injuring them for capture.  Sometimes things go bad with the incriminating of criminals and guards go ape-shit instead of hauling the person to jail.  Sometimes you're dragging your victim through the desert to your hideout and a raptor sneaks up and instakills the weakened PC with a brutal slash to the head, completely destroying your intents to RP out a good death scene or interrogation.

Things go wrong and there are lessons learned.  Hopefully the ones with the power doesn't make the same mistakes twice.

People are angry at things being not hard enough, but really pissed when their characters are ended by the harsh arm of Armageddon law? What's the deal? Do you just want your characters -challenged- by beasties on the road so you can train on them then run away but to never actually be killed, or face death?

From what I've seen, those in power generally don't PK without good reasons. However, it can be really easy to have a good reason. If someone's killing off other PC's, or trying to kill soldiers, etc, etc, they'll usually be ended, for instance.

Quote from: Bogre on November 26, 2008, 11:50:35 PM
People are angry at things being not hard enough, but really pissed when their characters are ended by the harsh arm of Armageddon law? What's the deal? Do you just want your characters -challenged- by beasties on the road so you can train on them then run away but to never actually be killed, or face death?

From what I've seen, those in power generally don't PK without good reasons. However, it can be really easy to have a good reason. If someone's killing off other PC's, or trying to kill soldiers, etc, etc, they'll usually be ended, for instance.

Nah. They want OTHER people's characters to die, to reinforce the harshness, and get close to it themselves a couple of times, but not actually do so.

I like being PKed.

PK more. Especially the crappy characters.

Quote from: Malken on November 21, 2008, 01:02:00 AM
And I hear that the tribal accent gives you +5 to your crafting skills.

It's true! It also lets merchants branch component making and all the sorcerer spells.

Completely unrelated ... Archbaron's signature made me lol.

I really don't mind being PKed as part of a plot. Beats hell out of dying to some critter.

I like my characters, don't get me wrong. It's just I like looking back at past ones and knowing this character was a part of something more. If I've got to lose one, I'd rather it be for a good reason, helping drive plots along so on.

I would really, REALLY like one of my PCs to be tortured to death.

No, really. If the PC is GOING to die, I'd rather have a scene like that then a BLARGH-INSTA-KILL thing. Give me the hope that my pitaful pleas will be heard, and mercy will be granted. Take that hope and SQUASH it infront of me when the PC realizes that they aren't going to live... AND they aren't going to die fast.

Also, PLEASE don't be one of those people who goes "me too tough to scream, me is BRAVE" because that's lame. Part of the reason I want to have a PC tortured to death is just so I can have someone being tortured act right for ONCE.

Ahem. I'm not a sadist. Really. >.>

I imagine everyone would scream at the admonitions of a Templar. They probably learn techniques in Templar Academy.

Haha...Templar Academy. Now I have an image of a zany cast of robed young troublemakers. Which one's the guy who does all the noises!?

I'd like to pipe up and say, for once, most of the templarate I've met in game currently, are pretty cool, and are all about expanding rp.  Kudos to those of you I've played with.

Quote from: Taven on November 27, 2008, 11:52:36 AM
I would really, REALLY like one of my PCs to be tortured to death.

No, really. If the PC is GOING to die, I'd rather have a scene like that then a BLARGH-INSTA-KILL thing. Give me the hope that my pitaful pleas will be heard, and mercy will be granted. Take that hope and SQUASH it infront of me when the PC realizes that they aren't going to live... AND they aren't going to die fast.

Also, PLEASE don't be one of those people who goes "me too tough to scream, me is BRAVE" because that's lame. Part of the reason I want to have a PC tortured to death is just so I can have someone being tortured act right for ONCE.

Ahem. I'm not a sadist. Really. >.>

And I'm not a masochist.  Really.  <.<

For the record, I think you would be surprised at how many people do act realistically in torture.  We do still see a lot of "My name is Bruce (Willis)" personae in torture situations, but a lot of people do break and crumble, which is just what we like to see.  Realism in torture is terrific!

Quote from: FightClub on November 28, 2008, 03:07:56 PM
I'd like to pipe up and say, for once, most of the templarate I've met in game currently, are pretty cool, and are all about expanding rp.  Kudos to those of you I've played with.

Indeed.

I have a good log of me being publically tortured to death by a templar.
It is over a year that I have been meaning to edit and submit it...
I should get on that.

Quote from: Shalooonsh on November 28, 2008, 03:18:14 PM

Quote from: Taven on November 27, 2008, 11:52:36 AM
I would really, REALLY like one of my PCs to be tortured to death.

No, really. If the PC is GOING to die, I'd rather have a scene like that then a BLARGH-INSTA-KILL thing. Give me the hope that my pitaful pleas will be heard, and mercy will be granted. Take that hope and SQUASH it infront of me when the PC realizes that they aren't going to live... AND they aren't going to die fast.

Also, PLEASE don't be one of those people who goes "me too tough to scream, me is BRAVE" because that's lame. Part of the reason I want to have a PC tortured to death is just so I can have someone being tortured act right for ONCE.

Ahem. I'm not a sadist. Really. >.>

And I'm not a masochist.  Really.  <.<

For the record, I think you would be surprised at how many people do act realistically in torture.  We do still see a lot of "My name is Bruce (Willis)" personae in torture situations, but a lot of people do break and crumble, which is just what we like to see.  Realism in torture is terrific!

Man, when we meet IC, it's going to be EPIC. Not that I want any of my PCs to die. Really.

I have yet to see a well-played out torture-- Oh, wait, there was one. It was an imm, though, so I don't think it counts. No offense, it's just we KNOW you guys can do stuff well, isn't that why you're imms? (Please note that telling me you're only imms because the Highlord declared you so, and so you can brutally torture us would CLEARLY be a spreading of IC information. xD)

I tend to not torture people because I've been bitched out OOC one or two times.

Torture, even with consent, is a sticky area. I don't want to overly offend players so I tend to not eviscerate them and then play with their bowels.

Quote from: Yam on November 28, 2008, 07:28:01 PM
I tend to not torture people because I've been bitched out OOC one or two times.

Torture, even with consent, is a sticky area. I don't want to overly offend players so I tend to not eviscerate them and then play with their bowels.

Wait a minute... Wait a minute...

THAT'S why it's sex and power, and not sex, power, and EVISERCATING PEOPLE TO PLAY WITH BOWELS.

The world makes so much more sense now. ;)

I'm surprised to see so many people actually -want- to be tortured on the GDB. I haven't seen much of that in game. Usually the two attitudes are "I'm completely totally innocent, don't torture me, set me free! This isn't fair!", or "Okay, I'm guilty, you caught me, just kill me quick, please?"

I suppose, if faced between a well-roleplayed torture scene or getting a character killed, I'd go for torture myself. In faced between a poor torture scene, i.e. "emote slices off your arm with one slice of her sword.", and death, I might just go for death. Lots of times people end up killing the people they torture anyway, so the torture is insult to injury.

From a torturer's perspective, I don't get much out of it. The Templar Torture Toys in Allanak can be fun (If Tuluk has anything like them I've never been unlucky enough to see), but to me, it's just boring to stand there in a cell and emote inflicting pain on somebody for 20 minutes. Unless there's a compelling RP scene in the works, I think it's better to just skip the nonsense and kill the guy, or not.

Quote from: Yam on November 28, 2008, 07:28:01 PM
I tend to not torture people because I've been bitched out OOC one or two times.

Torture, even with consent, is a sticky area. I don't want to overly offend players so I tend to not eviscerate them and then play with their bowels.

Well when you're making someone a double amputee for looking at you on accident, I can see why.  But if it's warranted, lashings, beatings, maybe some fingers, an eye, or tongue.  I can handle it.

Quote from: Southie on November 28, 2008, 08:01:32 PM
From a torturer's perspective, I don't get much out of it.

Don't you enjoy nibbling their toes?  Just a little?  Nom nom nom.

Also, for me personally, I'd want a happy medium ... not instant death but not something too ridiculously long.  You know, try to combine the horror of seeing my own spleen with the harsh reality of a boot to my temple making it all go *beep*.

Quote from: FightClub on November 28, 2008, 08:01:39 PM

Quote from: Yam on November 28, 2008, 07:28:01 PM
I tend to not torture people because I've been bitched out OOC one or two times.

Torture, even with consent, is a sticky area. I don't want to overly offend players so I tend to not eviscerate them and then play with their bowels.

Well when you're making someone a double amputee for looking at you on accident, I can see why.  But if it's warranted, lashings, beatings, maybe some fingers, an eye, or tongue.  I can handle it.

Some people don't like to see beloved characters hurt by outside things. I can understand.

Quote from: Southie on November 28, 2008, 08:01:32 PM
I'm surprised to see so many people actually -want- to be tortured on the GDB. I haven't seen much of that in game. Usually the two attitudes are "I'm completely totally innocent, don't torture me, set me free! This isn't fair!", or "Okay, I'm guilty, you caught me, just kill me quick, please?"

Well, ICly my PC doesn't want to die slowly, or something they percieve is "wrongfully". They're bound to beg for a quick death.

Maybe if I'd been tortured or done torturing ICly endless times I'd be bored of it. Death has always been instant for me, and anytime I've observed torture it has been poorly played out on the part of the victim. I don't care if you'd rather NOT give consent, but PLEASE don't play it out in a lame way.

But, yeah, I can see where from a torture's perspective it could get old, or from the torturee's perspective. I just haven't ever experianced it enough to get tired of it. Right now, it's something more interesting then INSTA DIE BLARGH. I think it's a shame that Way is so threatening that keeping your victim alive longer is just too dangerous, or stupid, because you'll get caught on to. YES, there are ways around that, but still.

My two 'sid.

If I'm going to spend time on torturing someone, I'm going to want them to live through it and eventually have an excuse to let them go.  Unfortunately, out of the several torture scenes I've been involved in, the torturee is usually too Chunk Norris or too 'why not just kill me now?!' for me to have a good excuse to allow them to live.  Really.

I've never been tortured, but I'd also love the experience.  There are worse ways to die, even if it comes down to that.  Death by gortok is definitely one  ;)

I've never really been involved in a torture, but I'd expect it to have a lot of introducing poison, or acid into the person's body, taking a hammer and crushing the bones in their hands, stuff like that.

Torture, IMO, shouldn't be as much about digging a knife into their gut and pulling out intestines. More physical harm, things that would last forever, making the person both glad to be alive, and wish they were dead.

Loss of a hand, having to walk around with a leg brace, being lashed so much that falling down might actually kill you. These are things torture should produce.

Quote from: Riev on November 30, 2008, 06:36:21 PM
I've never really been involved in a torture, but I'd expect it to have a lot of introducing poison, or acid into the person's body, taking a hammer and crushing the bones in their hands, stuff like that.

Torture, IMO, shouldn't be as much about digging a knife into their gut and pulling out intestines. More physical harm, things that would last forever, making the person both glad to be alive, and wish they were dead.

Loss of a hand, having to walk around with a leg brace, being lashed so much that falling down might actually kill you. These are things torture should produce.

What's torture without the hubris?

...This is a rhetorical question. Don't answer it.

As far as torture is concerned, I love the idea. Though I'd want to stay away from too much maiming. Crushing both hands with a hammer might impair someone from doing whatever I'd want them to do if I let them live. I'd rather do things like drive a knife through their tongue. Or cut off a toe, starting with the smallest toes. Or drive thorns/tiny knives through just their skin, piercing it in some of the more sensitive parts of the body. Things that might scar them up some, but leave them able to heal and be productive for my benefit afterwards.

I once had someone withhold information after taking a flaming torch to their -eyes-. So I killed them.

Or maybe they were just innocent....

Everyone acts like I have an IV full of truth serum hooked up to them during torture.

Seriously people, lie a little. It could save your life.

Also, I think the whole torture over killing thing would go over a lot better if you could permanently fuck somebodies PC. Removing an arm or both eyes or things like that tends to make people talk. Really quickly. The only downside to our system now is if I want to put both of your eyes out or take an arm off you as a player have to be okay with it.

Quote from: fourTwenty on December 03, 2008, 06:22:55 PM
The only downside to our system now is if I want to put both of your eyes out or take an arm off you as a player have to be okay with it.

AFAIK: Consent means that you can beg out of a graphic scene; it doesn't mean that you can pick and choose the results of (non-sexual) torture.  Blinding or amputation would require staff intervention, but probably not consent.

Consent means not having to watch it happen.

Quote from: brytta.leofa on December 03, 2008, 07:11:15 PM

Quote from: fourTwenty on December 03, 2008, 06:22:55 PM
The only downside to our system now is if I want to put both of your eyes out or take an arm off you as a player have to be okay with it.

AFAIK: Consent means that you can beg out of a graphic scene; it doesn't mean that you can pick and choose the results of (non-sexual) torture.  Blinding or amputation would require staff intervention, but probably not consent.

Consent means not having to watch it happen.

I know what consent means. However,  unless I've been misled, I still can't chop your arm off unless your okay with walking around with one arm. Definitely requires staff intervention but I was told we can't actually go around fucking up peoples PC's.

Aside from that, you people just aren't smart enough with your torture. Physical pain not gonna make'em talk, way <name censored here> for all your information extracting needs.

Quote from: Qzzrbl on December 03, 2008, 10:48:41 AM
I once had someone withhold information after taking a flaming torch to their -eyes-. So I killed them.

Or maybe they were just innocent....

Everyone acts like I have an IV full of truth serum hooked up to them during torture.

Seriously people, lie a little. It could save your life.

Actually, if I remember correctly it was a staff-assisted kill.  Only the second I've seen and rather rad at that...

But yes, I do felt it was unbelievable how much the tortu-ee didn't break.

Brandon

Aren't whips actually coded so that you can lash someone so much they lose max hp?  Or is that something only templars can do?

*Buggers off to buy a whip*

Quote from: Synthesis on December 03, 2008, 11:06:40 PM
Aren't whips actually coded so that you can lash someone so much they lose max hp?  Or is that something only templars can do?

*Buggers off to buy a whip*

I think everyone can flog other people with a whip, but you'd have to wish up for the max HP loss.

Something like that.

As per certain clan documentation, there is a specific amount of whip usage that must be used before the staff will consider an endurance drop or an HP drop to simulate the PC being crippled from it.

I don't know if this is a general rule or just for the clan in question, however.

Quote from: Fathi on December 03, 2008, 11:44:47 PM
As per certain clan documentation, there is a specific amount of whip usage that must be used before the staff will consider an endurance drop or an HP drop to simulate the PC being crippled from it.

I don't know if this is a general rule or just for the clan in question, however.

You should also refrain from whipping a subdued person in front of an agro NPC Mul... Unless of course you just like the excitement.

So then, is the consensus that Capital Punishment by way of death is actually overused? Or is it just in the eyes of a certain few?

Perhaps its something thats happened lately?

In seven years of playing I have yet to be killed by a templar.

I don't see it happening where I play.

Quote from: Riev on December 03, 2008, 11:59:40 PM
So then, is the consensus that Capital Punishment by way of death is actually overused? Or is it just in the eyes of a certain few?

Perhaps its something thats happened lately?

Heh, you want a consensus from the GDB ... I lol'ed  :D

Quote from: Jingo on December 04, 2008, 12:09:44 AM
In seven years of playing I have yet to be killed by a templar.

You are definitely not playing the game right.

I have yet to be killed by any PC, templar or no. I have yet to be killed by any templar, PC or no.

Quote from: AmandaGreathouse on December 04, 2008, 03:02:35 AM
I have yet to be killed by any PC, templar or no. I have yet to be killed by any templar, PC or no.

Quote from: Synthesis on December 04, 2008, 02:34:04 AM
You are definitely not playing the game right.

 I still say sometimes death is needed and wanted by certain plot lines. I would rather die to a templar/ect, in a plot, than to some random critter.

Quote from: Synthesis on December 04, 2008, 02:34:04 AM

Quote from: Jingo on December 04, 2008, 12:09:44 AM
In seven years of playing I have yet to be killed by a templar.

You are definitely not playing the game right.

I've been tortured and everything else but I've never actually been executed by an authority in a citystate. Granted there have been a couple of times where I ended up fleeing the city because I feared the above.

Edit: I'm hoping to actually get disapeared once before the end of Arm 1

Quote from: Jingo on December 04, 2008, 01:12:50 PM

Quote from: Synthesis on December 04, 2008, 02:34:04 AM

Quote from: Jingo on December 04, 2008, 12:09:44 AM
In seven years of playing I have yet to be killed by a templar.

You are definitely not playing the game right.

I've been tortured and everything else but I've never actually been executed by an authority in a citystate. Granted there have been a couple of times where I ended up fleeing the city because I feared the above.

Edit: I'm hoping to actually get disapeared once before the end of Arm 1

... Take off all your character's closed and try to walk into the Templar's Quarter. That should do the trick.

I've had a character professionally assassinated in 5.5 playing hours by a high-rung family agent.

I've had two characters thrown into the arena within 3 playing hours (one who actually got the auto-rezz after dying inside!) by a templar. One of those was sentenced to a lifetime of slavery after.

Been roleplay tortured by a superior several times with one character.

Am I playing the game wrong? (I'm technically losing.) :/

Quote from: Is Friday on December 06, 2008, 02:31:48 AM
Been roleplay tortured by a superior several times with one character.

I loved that character!

Quote from: Is Friday on December 06, 2008, 02:31:48 AM
I've had a character professionally assassinated in 5.5 playing hours by a high-rung family agent.

I've had two characters thrown into the arena within 3 playing hours (one who actually got the auto-rezz after dying inside!) by a templar. One of those was sentenced to a lifetime of slavery after.

Been roleplay tortured by a superior several times with one character.

Am I playing the game wrong? (I'm technically losing.) :/

There are no winners and losers in Arm. Only sadists and masochists.

Quote from: Jingo on December 06, 2008, 02:10:08 PM

Quote from: Is Friday on December 06, 2008, 02:31:48 AM
I've had a character professionally assassinated in 5.5 playing hours by a high-rung family agent.

I've had two characters thrown into the arena within 3 playing hours (one who actually got the auto-rezz after dying inside!) by a templar. One of those was sentenced to a lifetime of slavery after.

Been roleplay tortured by a superior several times with one character.

Am I playing the game wrong? (I'm technically losing.) :/

There are no winners and losers in Arm. Only sadists and masochists.

Don't forget the newbies and f-me's.

And solo hunters.

Quote from: Is Friday on December 06, 2008, 02:31:48 AM
I've had a character professionally assassinated in 5.5 playing hours by a high-rung family agent.

I've had two characters thrown into the arena within 3 playing hours (one who actually got the auto-rezz after dying inside!) by a templar. One of those was sentenced to a lifetime of slavery after.

Been roleplay tortured by a superior several times with one character.

Am I playing the game wrong? (I'm technically losing.) :/

If anything, my friend, I'd say you're playing right.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on December 12, 2008, 03:54:37 AM

Quote from: Is Friday on December 06, 2008, 02:31:48 AM
I've had a character professionally assassinated in 5.5 playing hours by a high-rung family agent.

I've had two characters thrown into the arena within 3 playing hours (one who actually got the auto-rezz after dying inside!) by a templar. One of those was sentenced to a lifetime of slavery after.

Been roleplay tortured by a superior several times with one character.

Am I playing the game wrong? (I'm technically losing.) :/

If anything, my friend, I'd say you're playing right.

I would agree... I wish my character deaths as of yet were that interesting!