Armageddon General Discussion Board

As a staffer, I've noticed that death seems to be a very common solution to people's problems.  Amos hates Malik, so Amos kills Malik.  Jack the Elf steals something from Bob the Bynner, so Bob kills Jack.  Rinther Jane insults Lady Fancypants, so Lady Fancypants has Jane killed.  Lord Templar Hardass hates Lord Silkybottom, so Hardass kills Silkybottom.  Red Moon the Soh wants that awesome sword that Big Dummy half-giant has, so Red Moon kills Big Dummy.  You get the idea.

Yes, death is one solution.  However, it is not the only solution, and I'd like to encourage players to get creative with their hatred and revenge.  Perhaps death is too good for that thorn in your side, hmm?  Here are a few other viable options:

--Find a way to use your enemy, directly or indirectly.  There is always a way to turn the situation around to your advantage and his disadvantage.  It's just a matter of finding it.  Manipulate them, their friends, family, anybody they know into serving your desires.

--Make them miserable by tormenting them.  Sometimes the occasional torment is satisfying, but sometimes it's more gratifying to be relentless about it.  This can be especially effective when your enemy doesn't realize that you are their enemy, because they don't realize that you're doing what you're doing to torment them.

--Ruin your enemy's reputation.  This is especially effective in high society.  Bringing shame upon someone when image is crucial can strike a tremendous blow, and do all sorts of damage.  Turn their friends/family/coworkers against them.

--Steal from your enemy.  Take anything and everything you can from them, whether it be material possessions, relationships, their dignity, and so on.  Maybe they know it's you who's robbing them.  Maybe they don't, and you can sit back and laugh from the shadows while they lose.

By leaving your enemy alive, you open the doors to so much more fun and interesting roleplay for both you and your nemeses.

Punishing someone with death has its place, but I find a sort of eye-for-an-eye approach works best for a rational character. You could solve things evenly, or concede to your enemy, or escalate tensions with your enemy.

Example:
Jack the Elf steals something from Bob the Bynner.

Objective:
To get the thing back.

Solutions:
Concession: Buy the thing back from Jack.
Even: Steal the thing back from Jack.
Escalation: Find Jack at the Gaj, brawl with him a bit until he gives up the thing, leave him bloodied on the floor.

Now with all these things, Jack stays alive. But with the first solution, you potentially open the way for Bob to make friends with Jack, and with the other two solutions, you make things between Bob and Jack even worse.

Signed.

Death sometimes has its place, but it's definitely overused as a solution.

However, I also find that creative vengeance is difficult in ARM, because lots of things I would like to do to other PCs just aren't coded (curses, non-poison substances, practical jokes), and/or they would require staff support, and/or they are not subtle enough to work inside the culture (*cough* Tuluk), and/or authority figures overreact to every little thing you might want to do to another PC.

True story: Once upon a time I played a bard in Tuluk who followed a (commoner, half-elf, non-clanned) PC who dissed her from bar to bar, singing annoyingly at him. My bard's friend was there and decided to beat the PC up in a non-lethal fistfight at the Tooth. My bard later got reprimanded by a templar for this incident--even though technically all she had done was be annoying at a complete social nobody. WTF?

I have also on multiple occasions when playing a clanned PC been ordered not to annoy or anger or mess with other PCs. I have always found this ridiculous. This actually encourages PCs to escalate violence in order to get it done with--a quiet, quick, simple kill rather than the other option, which is often to do nothing.

I think something other than killing makes for better story, but I dont think its always the rational choice for a person who is afraid of, or vulnerable to counterattack.   There has to be a very specific story setting to to catch and punish killers while less strenuous legal and social controls are placed on other avenues.  For the average or even "middle class" Zalanthan, I dont see this being the case.  The first person who can resort to an assassin or a templar probably wins.  It would take a certain arrogance to repeatedly act against a capable enemy who has -any- chance of figuring out the source of their troubles.

Sometimes there are consequences, and you either plan for them, or deal with them as they come.  It's important to keep in mind that things aren't always going to go your way, and that you'll have a lot more fun if you accept and work with that.  (And also that your PCs don't -have- to do what they're told.  Not everyone is the fit in and play nice type.  Again, plan for consequences.)  If one way doesn't work, try another.  Or, you and your PC can sit around stewing about it.  Where you go is entirely up to you.

Remember, you're never in trouble if you don't get caught!

In my ah... like... seven/eightish months here at Arm. I've never killed anyone. If I get mad, I get even. Make their life bad so that they WANT to die. Or at least, sometimes that is the intention.

Both the coded and roleplayed environments of ARM reinforce PKing as the most-efficacious solution to conflict, is what I'm saying. So long as that is true, PKing will always be preferred by the playerbase; exhortations to ignore the coded and roleplayed environments may have a temporary effect, but the pendulum will always swing back toward PKing since we continually get new, younger players and lose more-experienced, older ones. The problem, fundamentally, is the system--not the players themselves. The players are just applying a rational, min/max mindset to the problem of enemies in ARM.

Here's something I actually have had a problem with a few times: you solve a problem non-lethally in some way but it ends up crippling your enemy (physically, or socially). The enemy ends up storing, or even suiciding. Is it possible to solve a problem without killing but be doing "too much" in the process - so much so that it discourages the player from playing his or her character?

For simplicity, I'm going to present my personal opinions as fact here. :D

Murder is something that few, if any, of us would ever contemplate seriously in real life.  Yet we know that most of Zalanthas' societies are quite violent, even bloodthirsty.  Because real violence is so far removed from our experience, it's not always easy to grasp where this comes from and when violence is appropriate.

Life is cheaper in Zalanthas, but much of the cheapening comes from tribalism and from extreme differences in social power.  Leaving aside cess-pools of ultimate desperation like the Labyrinth, the average commoner is extremely reluctant to kill someone like himself.  A Bynner who murders another Bynner, almost regardless of the provocation, is a psychopath: it is not normal behavior to kill within your own stratum.

Justification for murder doesn't start with the actual offense; it starts with an excuse for de-personalizing the victim.  For a commoner in Allanak, perhaps it's enough that he's a Filthy 'Rinthi.  For a soldier, it's that he's proved himself to be Criminal Scum: he hurt your buddy, or he's always up to "bad" crime (the kind you can't skim from).  For a noble, he's shown himself to be outside that small group of commoners who speak couthly and don't smell and are able to amuse you.  For tribals, human, elf, or otherwise, it's someone born outside the tribe and ignorant of how The People comport themselves.  Note that depersonalization based on social order works in only one direction: Trooper Amos is a non-person to Lord Fancypants, but the opposite is not true.

Besides all this, most people shouldn't be considering murder outright unless the offense is extreme.  But it's the conjunction of both elements--a grievous threat or injury, and by an un-person--that puts murder within the reach of the sane and non-criminal.

Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 24, 2009, 02:20:42 PM
However, I also find that creative vengeance is difficult in ARM, because lots of things I would like to do to other PCs just aren't coded (curses, non-poison substances, practical jokes), and/or they would require staff support...

I, personally, very much enjoy helping out with creative solutions to problems that reflect the putative world about PCs, even when the necessary bits have not been coded. Whether this involves supporting use of vNPCs (e.g. you catching a box o' roaches to let loose in your enemies' apartments), supporting actions that have not been coded (e.g. a gemmer trying to put the evil eye on someone), or any other creative means of furthering things, I'm interested.

I suppose I should put a caveat on that, though: staff work together. It may be decided that your gemmer in fact does not have the ability to put the evil eye on that nasty militia corporal, despite the persistent rumours about magickers; it may be decided that you just don't have the ability to dig a tunnel underneath the Oashi estate, using just a jasper spoon, so you can eavesdrop on their secret meetings; either way, though, I won't just ignore you.

In this case, Gimf is correct.

Very few PCs can afford to leave a possible enemy alive, Templars and a few others, call it 5-10% of the PCs.

And no matter what anybody says. Death is and always will be the only perm solution.

And Niamh might not have an alterer motive for such a post, but I often feel that such posts by staff do.

Something like "Please stop killing my plot PCs!"

The first word in the arm theme is after all Murder.

Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 24, 2009, 02:40:39 PM
a rational, min/max mindset to the problem of enemies in ARM.

Definitely defined a utility function for my PC, including a term for pleasure from vengeance. I then took its total differential to find the "marginal propensity to increase utility in exchange for another player's life".  Now, I can compare this to the marginal utility gain (pleasure from vengeance) of alive, tortured enemies.  I'm likely to say that I'd enjoy tortured enemies more.. But, this is the hang up.  There is a negative function, Trouble, which is a function of bad activities, and alive enemies..  For simplicity, I'll ignore other factors affecting utility, and just just involve the terms that include enemies.


U = utility
VP=vengeance pleasure
de = dead enemies
T = trouble   (note that dU/dT would be negative, or more trouble is bad for utility)
ba = bad activities
ae = alive enemies (note, assume all alive enemies are tormented by PC, thus, ae has a positive effect on VP but a negative effect on T)
Therfore U= VP(ae,te) + T(ba,ae)
dU = VP_de*dde + VP_ae*dae + T_ba*dba + T_aedae
note: T_ae<0  (more alive enemies, negative effect)
also note, to Niamh's credit:  VP_de < VP_ae

But here's the real trouble.   |VP_ae| < |T_ae|
That is, the total effect magnitude of the alive-enemies is greater on trouble than on vengeance-pleasure.

Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 24, 2009, 02:20:42 PM
I have also on multiple occasions when playing a clanned PC been ordered not to annoy or anger or mess with other PCs. I have always found this ridiculous. This actually encourages PCs to escalate violence in order to get it done with--a quiet, quick, simple kill rather than the other option, which is often to do nothing.

Partly this is because of Small PC Population Syndrome, where everybody is important to somebody.

The closest I've gotten to being involved in an assassination (which, AFAIK, didn't happen) was probably four years ago.  A certain 'rinthi crime boss had, for reasons unclear to me, threatened the life of a Borsail aide.  The aide was, of course, an item with the Borsail sergeant, whose mostly-unknown connections made him nigh untouchable.  The obvious solution to us grunts was: "A 'rinthi threatened to kill Kiri?  And we're servants of the First House?  Exactly how much trouble will we be in if we dice him up in the Gaj?"

But of course the 'rinthi was also the preferred spice dealer of one of the Ladies Borsail.

(Mind you, this was actually a case that worked out correctly: people took time to investigate the social implications of what they had in mind.)

Quote from: Oleupata on September 24, 2009, 02:55:33 PM
I, personally, very much enjoy helping out with creative solutions to problems that reflect the putative world about PCs, even when the necessary bits have not been coded. ... either way, though, I won't just ignore you.

That makes me happy to hear, Oleupata. I have on a handful of occasions attempted to pursue non-lethal vengeance against other PCs, with the agreed-by-email support of staff, and the results have always been that I simply haven't heard back once I've done the part I was supposed to do. (Nor were there any apparent results in game.) It really put me off of trying to do interesting stuff to PCs, so much so that now I pretty much always choose to play PCs who don't give a crap about doing anything to enemies--since it feels like such a waste of energy and attention to me.

Quote from: Cutthroat on September 24, 2009, 02:48:51 PM
Here's something I actually have had a problem with a few times: you solve a problem non-lethally in some way but it ends up crippling your enemy (physically, or socially). The enemy ends up storing, or even suiciding. Is it possible to solve a problem without killing but be doing "too much" in the process - so much so that it discourages the player from playing his or her character?

I've had this happen too. With the aforementioned bardic encounter, the PC who got beat up was knocked unconscious and I stole all his stuff--with the complete intent to give it all back once I'd coerced an apology out of him. But he woke up, stormed off, and apparently suicided (he ranted about it later on the GDB). I don't have a good solution to this overall issue. Most players just do not like anything negative at all happening to their PCs.

Quote from: brytta.leofa on September 24, 2009, 02:53:46 PM
wise stuff

Yeah. Well, except that your rationale would pretty much justify all upper-crust PKings of lower-crust PCs, and I think they are actually just as often unjustified--usually the result just of boredom on the noble or templar's part.

Quote from: brytta.leofa on September 24, 2009, 03:06:27 PM
Partly this is because of Small PC Population Syndrome, where everybody is important to somebody.

Yes, but also no, because often even picking on a complete social nobody elicits the same STOP THAT! response.

Oh, and I would like to add.

90% of my PKs have been forced on me by the Victim. The other 10% were gonna happen anyway.

Many players understand this. When I've played in the Arm or Legion, you would be amazed how often a templar intends to leave somebody alive but the other PC makes it impossible to do so.

I personally think it's more fun to have my char brood and feel like shit about being insulted rather than >killing the person over it.
It's actually a pretty interesting RP experience.

However, if it's a grave insult... I'll probably do something more drastic if it's IC for my guy.

Sometimes you try and try and try to work around death, but the killee just leaves you no choice.

I would tell stories, but they are all too recent.

Personally, whenever another PC takes mercy on one of my PCs (especially in the case of nobility or the templarate), usually the last thing on my PC's mind is revenge.  Most people, I imagine, would be thankful to have been mercifully allowed to live in the face of (almost) certain death.

This, of course, is subject to your character's personality, but overall I think it comes down to players better role-playing a sense of mortality; while you, as a player, know that there is always another character concept around the corner, death is final for your PC, and the realm of Drov/the fiery hellpits of Suk-Krath sound pretty shitty to me.

My opinion on this may be a bit skewed, but I -love- it when my PC's get tortured/disfigured/maimed/made to wish they were dead.

It brings more conflict to the table and adds more to the story.
Cut my pc's up in public? In private? Make their lives a living drov? Yes please.

I actually took a week to completely quit Arm because I was so burned out on it. Every single person plotting against my pc was plotting death. Oh wooo. It gets old when it feels like all the plotting is the same thing. Srsly, get more creative.

I would love to see some of the pointless, senseless PK stop. If you really want to get to them, kill thier mate and kids, oxshit people into hating them too much to talk to them, bribe people into randomly shaking them down or whooping their ass. There are entirely too many ways to increase the conflict and get even or fuck someone up without bringing PK (or even slavery or serious mutilation) into the picture.

Quote from: FantasyWriter on September 24, 2009, 03:43:26 PM
Sometimes you try and try and try to work around death, but the killee just leaves you no choice.

I would tell stories, but they are all too recent.

Agreed.  So long as you made that conscious effort to try the alternative route, however, nobody can fault you.  :D

I have some recent "success stories" relevant to the topic as well, but they, likewise, are too recent.  I suppose it all boils down to player trust.  And I trust you people.  Most of you.

I've been guilty of letting the realism of a scene slip in order to let a scene end without a beep, even when the most obvious ic route would be a swift or better yet, a slow and painful death. I often find myself regretting the decision shortly after, but I do aim for the more enjoyable route of extended conflict or the joy of knowing I played possibly a more entertaining part of their pc's history in the scene given.

Oh.. and let it be remembered...
Plenty of RPI's out there with respawns.  ;)

Quote from: Aaron Goulet on September 24, 2009, 04:44:55 PM
I suppose it all boils down to player trust.  And I trust you people.  Most of you.

To play this game you absolutely have to trust your fellow players.  It would never work otherwise.

Quote from: RogueGunslinger on September 24, 2009, 04:59:10 PM

Quote from: Aaron Goulet on September 24, 2009, 04:44:55 PM
I suppose it all boils down to player trust.  And I trust you people.  Most of you.

To play this game you absolutely have to trust your fellow players.  It would never work otherwise.

Have to say, I don't trust approximately 78% of y'all. Sad but true. This is why when I do play I pretty much avoid any and all authority figures until they have definitively proven themselves. (Same goes for hooded figures.)

Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 24, 2009, 05:02:14 PM
Have to say, I don't trust approximately 78% of y'all. Sad but true. This is why when I do play I pretty much avoid any and all authority figures until they have definitively proven themselves. (Same goes for hooded figures.)

New templars (newplars) scare the living shit out of me until they've been around for a bit.

QuoteHave to say, I don't trust approximately 78% of y'all. Sad but true. This is why when I do play I pretty much avoid any and all authority figures until they have definitively proven themselves. (Same goes for hooded figures.)

Specialy Newplars.

Been burned every single time I've ignored my own rule on that matter.

X-D's rule of newplars.
Do not interact with them until they have been around at least 1 RL month and active.

Newplars, I like it.

Quote from: Gimfalisette
Have to say, I don't trust approximately 78% of y'all. Sad but true. This is why when I do play I pretty much avoid any and all authority figures until they have definitively proven themselves. (Same goes for hooded figures.)

The problem with this is there needs to be a mutual trust for any continuous plotlines to go down between players. And I wouldn't call spamwalking past authority figures 'avoiding them', even if it is successful.

Quote from: X-DX-D's rule of newplars.
Do not interact with them until they have been around at least 1 RL month and active.

I don't like this. I don't think you should be basing any characters dependent on OOC factors such as how long they've been active.

Also, give Templars a break. They usually have to bust their balls creating plots for everyone else. And the role isn't very rewarding. If you think you could play a 'newplar' or even a half-decent Templar, I implore you. No, I encourage you. Go make one and see if you're any better than the rest.

Sorry, I got a bit derailed.

I -always- try to avoid killing someone unless completely utterly necessary. I haven't personally PK'd anyone since 2004ish, come to think of it.

There are so many ways to screw with a character other than killing them. So many!!!

Quote from: Rhyden on September 24, 2009, 05:12:09 PM
The problem with this is there needs to be a mutual trust for any continuous plotlines to go down between players. And I wouldn't call spamwalking past authority figures 'avoiding them', even if it is successful.

No, I mean, I don't go in their taverns and I don't hang out with their aides and I don't join their clans and I don't do business with them. I actively avoid contact, because in my experience, authority figures are more trouble than they are worth. Do I wish this was not true? Oh yes, I do. But it has been true. And, I have done my share of leading and being-the-change and all that, but that isn't always feasible or desirable.

I think it's better for us players to be honest about what makes us avoid other PCs, past and present, than try to sweep the problem of trust under the rug of "but you should just trust." Trust is an earned quantity, and for the most part, the playerbase does not earn it.

Circling back to the topic, overzealousness in PKing as a trend reduces trust. And reduced trust means reduced interaction, which means an impoverished game.

Quote from: Niamh on September 24, 2009, 01:58:05 PM
As a staffer, I've noticed that death seems to be a very common solution to people's problems.  Amos hates Malik, so Amos kills Malik.  Jack the Elf steals something from Bob the Bynner, so Bob kills Jack.  Rinther Jane insults Lady Fancypants, so Lady Fancypants has Jane killed.  Lord Templar Hardass hates Lord Silkybottom, so Hardass kills Silkybottom.  Red Moon the Soh wants that awesome sword that Big Dummy half-giant has, so Red Moon kills Big Dummy.  You get the idea.

Yes, death is one solution.  However, it is not the only solution, and I'd like to encourage players to get creative with their hatred and revenge.  Perhaps death is too good for that thorn in your side, hmm?  Here are a few other viable options:

--Find a way to use your enemy, directly or indirectly.  There is always a way to turn the situation around to your advantage and his disadvantage.  It's just a matter of finding it.  Manipulate them, their friends, family, anybody they know into serving your desires.

--Make them miserable by tormenting them.  Sometimes the occasional torment is satisfying, but sometimes it's more gratifying to be relentless about it.  This can be especially effective when your enemy doesn't realize that you are their enemy, because they don't realize that you're doing what you're doing to torment them.

--Ruin your enemy's reputation.  This is especially effective in high society.  Bringing shame upon someone when image is crucial can strike a tremendous blow, and do all sorts of damage.  Turn their friends/family/coworkers against them.

--Steal from your enemy.  Take anything and everything you can from them, whether it be material possessions, relationships, their dignity, and so on.  Maybe they know it's you who's robbing them.  Maybe they don't, and you can sit back and laugh from the shadows while they lose.

By leaving your enemy alive, you open the doors to so much more fun and interesting roleplay for both you and your nemeses.

These seem effective options if you are playing in Tuluk. But I don't think that Red Moon the Soh is going to get that fancy sword of Big Dummy's that he likes so much, by hiring a bard to make bad poetry about him.

Quote from: Ziya on September 24, 2009, 05:45:29 PM
I don't think that Red Moon the Soh is going to get that fancy sword of Big Dummy's that he likes so much, by hiring a bard to make bad poetry about him.

You're probably right about that, but there are plenty of solutions available to everyone.

In most cases, when person A wants what person B has, person A doesn't kill person B for it. Person A finds some way to acquire it, that might leave person B at a disadvantage (from having lost the item, and possibly from having been shaken up or injured during a raid). What makes you think the plea here is to replace murder with reputation tarnishing specifically?

QuoteCircling back to the topic, overzealousness in PKing/spamfleeing as a trend reduces trust. And reduced trust means reduced interaction, which means an impoverished game.

Fixed.

QuoteThese seem effective options if you are playing in Tuluk. But I don't think that Red Moon the Soh is going to get that fancy sword of Big Dummy's that he likes so much, by hiring a bard to make bad poetry about him.

Um, one is an elf.  One is a half-giant.  Immediate obvioius IC preferred solution on the method of acquiring said sword for anyone in the elf mindset.  I disdain elves (yes, D-Elves too) that think the "killing" method of "stealing" is anything other than the least preferred and least respect gaining solution.

I'm all for creative solutions than PK.  Of course, I also think Zalanthas is messed, having so many drama queens that get upset over a look.

I wouldn't even consider killing a PC unless I knew that I'm likely to die as a result from not doing so. This only holds true if I make the decision though, if shit's going down and somebody breaks all bounds of belief to get away, damn right I'll kill 'em somehow ;D

QuoteI don't like this. I don't think you should be basing any characters dependent on OOC factors such as how long they've been active.

Too bad. I and many others do.

Sadly a new templar is usually a new templar player.

And though the PC is not technicly new, it takes new players a while to settle in. They jump the gun on things, they use too much code without understanding what can happen, they tend to ignore options. They tend to be over zealous and impatient.

Every one of those things can bite a non-templar PC and usually does.

And you should be happy that many of us do avoid newplars . Because Many of us that do are perfectly capable of snuffing out said PCs. I leave them be, let them settle in and let staff keep a watch over them for that month or so.

Normaly staff or stupidity will deal with it if they are a problem and often inside 4-6 weeks.

Of course, I also avoid all apped leaders for a good 2-3 weeks. They don't need to be avoided as long as newplars since they have much less coded power and are easier to murder.

The only coded thing* I can do to your characters, that is harmful, is killing them.

When that is changed, there will be less murders.




*coded without immortal intervention.

Quote from: mansa on September 24, 2009, 07:03:48 PM
The only coded thing* I can do to your characters, that is harmful, is killing them.

There's a cosmetic thing you can do.

QuoteThe only coded thing* I can do to your characters, that is harmful, is killing them.

Incorrect.  Remedial Byn re-training for Mansa.

QuoteThe only coded thing* I can do to your characters, that is harmful, is killing them.

More then byn retraining, I can think of at least 12 coded, harmful things that do not require staff help.

Quote from: X-D on September 24, 2009, 06:54:02 PM

QuoteI don't like this. I don't think you should be basing any characters dependent on OOC factors such as how long they've been active.

And though the PC is not technicly new, it takes new players a while to settle in. They jump the gun on things, they use too much code without understanding what can happen, they tend to ignore options. They tend to be over zealous and impatient.

Of course, I also avoid all apped leaders for a good 2-3 weeks. They don't need to be avoided as long as newplars since they have much less coded power and are easier to murder.

That's pretty discouraging, X-D. Let me use a quote and a small blurb to explain why.

Quote from: jhunterCircling back to the topic, overzealousness in PKing/spamfleeing  as a trend reduces trust. And reduced trust means reduced interaction, which means an impoverished game.

If you want to avoid newplars, or new clan leaders, simply on the basis that they are new, go ahead. It's only you who will miss out. Some characters have more power than others, but like all things in Armageddon, power balanced itself out. If you have a newplar killing every single character who goes out of their way to not avoid them, players are going to avoid the templar anyways. All I'm saying is give leaders a chance - you may be surprised.

I think avoiding a clan leader (who can kill people) because they are new, is similar to avoiding a new player who doesn't understand code mechanics of the game.

Quote from: Rhyden on September 24, 2009, 07:16:11 PM
All I'm saying is give leaders a chance - you may be surprised.

I think avoiding a clan leader (who can kill people) because they are new, is similar to avoiding a new player who doesn't understand code mechanics of the game.

I give leaders a chance, but it's a very wary chance. If they show telltale signs of being power-abusive or just poor players, I'm outta there and it's unlikely I'll ever regret it. But if I can tell they're an awesome player, then they may even find themselves with a new aide/crafter/hunter/soldier once my current PC bites it.

And avoiding clan leaders is nothing like avoiding newbies. Newbies can't do anything to me; the balance of power is totally in my favor.

Quote from: X-D on September 24, 2009, 07:11:59 PM

QuoteThe only coded thing* I can do to your characters, that is harmful, is killing them.

More then byn retraining, I can think of at least 12 coded, harmful things that do not require staff help.

What else is there?

I can think of:
Removal of Character
Removal of Items on Character


/Political Harm isn't coded.
//Immortal Intervention can remove limbs / forcibly add scars / remove skills / lower skills / etc

Quote
I think avoiding a clan leader (who can kill people) because they are new, is similar to avoiding a new player who doesn't understand code mechanics of the game.

I disagree, because for the most part, a new player can't kill people right out of the box. A clan leader (who can kill people) can, by definition, kill people. Right out of the box. A templar not only can, but has the coded IC authority to do so, and there's nothing you can do to prevent it. You generally can't even defend yourself against it, because if you try the NPC soldiers will auto-gank you.

With a new player who logs in and types "kill man" just because he doesn't know any better, HE is the one most likely to be dead as a result of his hasty mistake.

If a new templar is playing around with his commands, you're the one who ends up dead. Not him.

Also I've seen the more over-zealot type newplars aplenty in the past couple of years. In fact, the vast majority of templars I've seen, have been far more eager to instigate, initiate, manipulate, or otherwise cause coded combat, when they've been brand new out of chargen. The vast majority of those that do this, who -also- make it past their first couple of weeks, tend to calm down dramatically.

From the southern templars who can't wait to order all subdue elf, knowing damned well that the elf just came in from the desert and probably doesn't have his nosave on..

to the northern templar who's chomping at the bit to order his newly-assigned legion crew out on a friendly bahamet hunt..

It seems a trend, that they do this from the start, and gradually chill out as they get into their roles as leaders. As a result, it is pretty much a no-brainer that if you don't want to be a templar's first victim, then stay the fuck out of their way until they've got at least a few weeks of time into the game.

Quote from: Lizzie on September 24, 2009, 07:50:01 PM

Quote
I think avoiding a clan leader (who can kill people) because they are new, is similar to avoiding a new player who doesn't understand code mechanics of the game.

I disagree, because for the most part, a new player can't kill people right out of the box. A clan leader (who can kill people) can, by definition, kill people. Right out of the box. A templar not only can, but has the coded IC authority to do so, and there's nothing you can do to prevent it. You generally can't even defend yourself against it, because if you try the NPC soldiers will auto-gank you.

I'll give you that. A newplar is vastly different from a newbie. I think it's just similar mentality. "I'm going to avoid this player, not because of their personality, not because of their physical appearance, nor their power-craving mind, but because their character is new."

Yeah, you have to be careful around new players with coded benefits, but avoiding them entirely based on an OOC fact just seems unfair to me.

Quote from: mansa on September 24, 2009, 07:03:48 PM
The only coded thing* I can do to your characters, that is harmful, is killing them.

When that is changed, there will be less murders.




*coded without immortal intervention.

Agreed.
Are we all being forced to be Dr Evil here? Let's leave them in an easily escapable situation and just assume they are dead after we tell them our entire plan.

Quote from: Rhyden on September 24, 2009, 07:55:05 PM
Yeah, you have to be careful around new players with coded benefits, but avoiding them entirely based on an OOC fact just seems unfair to me.

The burden of proving themselves is totally on the player with more power in the situation. It's like parenting; if you're my kid, it's not your job to somehow make me act loving (or at least not abusive) toward you. That's my job, because I'm the one with all the power and authority in the situation.

I cannot think of 12 permanent, change-your-pfile type coded things I could do.

I can think of many temporary things.

I can think of many permanent things outside of the pfile.

Quote from: Twilight on September 24, 2009, 08:02:17 PM
I cannot think of 12 permanent, change-your-pfile type coded things I could do.

I can think of many temporary things.

I can think of many permanent things outside of the pfile.

Well, I've seen scars for missing eyes, missing ears, and missing fingers... that's a start!

Quote from: Twilight on September 24, 2009, 08:02:17 PM
I cannot think of 12 permanent, change-your-pfile type coded things I could do.

I can think of many temporary things.

I can think of many permanent things outside of the pfile.

He said coded, harmful things. Not permanent things.

However, there are several permanent damaging things that can be inflicted codedly without the assistance of staff.

Ummm, why avoid anyone? That is completely defeating the point of getting the 'newblars' seasoned. Folks with the power to kill are watched, by the imms....if they do something wrong, they will be asked a series of questions involving the matter. I rp with whoever whenever...if it's my time to be a lesson for a Sargeant/Newblar/Defiler/Big Macho man/god king....then so be it, but I don't want to rob others of rp just because they are new to a power role.

Back to the topic at hand....in all my experiences.....death scenes simply put suck.....torture, now there's something I like ALOT. *dark smirk*

Quote from: Twilight on September 24, 2009, 08:02:17 PM
I cannot think of 12 permanent, change-your-pfile type coded things I could do.

I can think of many temporary things.

I can think of many permanent things outside of the pfile.

Can you elaborate?

Quote from: Yam on September 24, 2009, 08:06:12 PM
He said coded, harmful things. Not permanent things.

However, there are several permanent damaging things that can be inflicted codedly without the assistance of staff.

If there is examples as to what you can do with other characters, maybe people will do those examples, instead of doing the only things that they know how to do.
Kill you and Steal your crap.

Quote from: Fathi on September 24, 2009, 08:05:02 PM
Well, I've seen scars for missing eyes, missing ears, and missing fingers... that's a start!

I can't codedly add a scar to you.  You must do it to your own character.

I think it's okay to say you can 'use whip <person>' to, well, whip a person with your whip. Whipping IRL leaves some nasty scars... maybe it does IG too.

THANK YOU FOR THIS POST!!!

there isn't going to be that much rampant murder in Zanaths.  

First, the reason people live in cities (esp in terrible/ oppressive cities) is for safety!!  The fact that PCs can lead, realitivly, safe lives has a lot to do with the cities not being as dangerous as the wilderness OR places like UT and Labyrinth.  

Second, the cities are (again it's all relative) peaceful.  There is a consistency to life brought about by living under some kind of government.  That's because at some point, in some way, there is an established sense of justice -- the nobles rule because of the divine justice of the gods; you get to play 'kick the skinny' because there is justice in tormenting these evil things; superstitions of all kinds almost always revolve around some kind of justice.


There is PKing because players decide to PK

Players do play a role in what happens in game, so can't blame something on some "system"

PK isn't the most efficient for your Character -- it is most efficient to "win" at the game (a player reason)

Quote from: mansa on September 24, 2009, 08:16:06 PM
I can't codedly add a scar to you.  You must do it to your own character.

I wasn't aware that was what was being discussed. I was under the assumption "without staff help" just meant "PCs can do it without imms."

The list is a lot shorter if we limit it to what one PC can do to another PC without the victim's assistance, yeah.

This is a game that focuses heavily on roleplay.  Why does the damage done to a PC need to be coded?

Quote from: Niamh on September 24, 2009, 09:23:19 PM
This is a game that focuses heavily on roleplay.  Why does the damage done to a PC need to be coded?

Thank you.

This.

X 10000000.

Quote from: Niamh on September 24, 2009, 09:23:19 PM
This is a game that focuses heavily on roleplay.  Why does the damage done to a PC need to be coded?

Because a lot of folks don't trust other folks to roll with it?

There's a general lack of coded ways to compromise others. If you don't have one of a few uncommon skills, you cannot touch another character in any coded way besides attacking them. Attempting to steal something is borderline suicide if you are not a highly skilled pickpocket, and even if there was something like a laxitive poison, inflicting it on another character is almost impossible without sticking a sharp object in them. Since ignoring undesirable roleplay is so easy (and common), coded actions are often seen as the only solution, and to most characters, this amounts to little more than "kill" and "shoot". There's no way to get someone's shirt stained by throwing something at them, or spilling their drink, or even removing them from their seat with the brawl code. Player characters often do not have a reputation for you to sully, or are so deeply ingrained in the AIM circles that any such attempt would be futile. Few players are really worried about something like that because it's usually pretty obvious when someone is deliberately trying to ruin somebody's reputation, and one will find that it is ignored because of that. If your character has a close friend, relative or colleague, are you going to pay much attention to some random person who tells you they saw your friend go home with a necker whore when you know they would never do that? When all it takes to confirm is a quick Way? When you haven't seen a necker whore PC in the city for six months?

The game's premises give us few possibilities for the more interesting aspects of social roleplay, and the playerbase is too complacent to allow it anyway. It takes two things to remedy this: a change of code and a change of mentality. The code needs to have more options, but it doesn't even allow us to be anonymous let alone do anything to others outside of a select few all-or-nothing skills. The mentality of the playerbase needs to change so that everyone isn't an unshakable bastion of security and knowledge. This is true within all elements of the game, from crime to business to socialites. As someone smart once said, you can't cheat a character unless you also cheat the player; if the player knows something, most of the time they will let their character know the same just to avoid being the subject of undesirable roleplay. This is both the fault of the players for not allowing anything bad to happen to their characters, and the fault of the game for not discouraging that kind of behaviour.

Quote from: Niamh on September 24, 2009, 09:23:19 PM
This is a game that focuses heavily on roleplay.  Why does the damage done to a PC need to be coded?

This.  Because, I can tell you, I've had characters fucked over by non-coded consequences (usually social in nature) FAR more times than by coded consequences, and the effects are usually longer-lasting (with the exception of death, which only holds me back until my next character application gets approved).

If we're encouraging less PK, why is it that the staff are slowly but surely relieving high leadership roles of their governmental rights (such as, for example, forced bondage or slavery)? It seems a little contradictory.

I think its just as bad to leave someone alive because you think it will be fun to have an arch nemesis oocly as it is to kill someone because oocly you like to kill other players. If your character would kill them, then do it, if not then don't.

Quote from: KankWhisperer on September 24, 2009, 10:21:13 PM
I think its just as bad to leave someone alive because you think it will be fun to have an arch nemesis oocly as it is to kill someone because oocly you like to kill other players. If your character would kill them, then do it, if not then don't.

Thank you.

Realism. Perhaps the motto should be changed to: "Mutilation , Corruption, and Betrayal .. Just don't kill any one."

Sometimes the internal RP of a PC makes anything -but- murder not an available option. Yes, I agree murder should be a last option, but when there are not other
options as given by the RP of the situation, doesn't matter if the killing PC wants to give way to another option if it'd be going against their RP to do so. And I'm not
talking about Jack the Ripper type of PCs either.

Quote from: Niamh on September 24, 2009, 09:23:19 PM
This is a game that focuses heavily on roleplay.  Why does the damage done to a PC need to be coded?

Armageddon isn't a MUSH.  If I type:
">emote throws a spear at you!"
or
">throw spear you"

It will give two different responses.  One you can react to, and another you cannot react to.

If I type:
">emote chops off your arm."

You can either:
Go with it
or
Say, "OOC Stop power emoting, I dodge that."


There is no random dice rolls to dictate authority of emoting in situations.  You just have to go with what the other person is willing to allow to happen.


If you read Greve's response, I think he brings up two big points as to why people resort to the one of a few coded responses we have to "interact" with.  People dislike having their characters harmed.  They will retire their character if they don't like playing it.  This is a game where people want to have fun, primarily, and roleplay around in an interactive world.

In My Opinion, If you ask someone if they want their character harmed, most likely they will say no.  If you force it upon them, via coded action, they can't say no.


I would enjoy more authority over other characters, (and them over me), in order to force certain situations over them, (and them over me).  Templars have awesome authority in jail cells, and can dictate almost any outcome there.  Some noble/merchant houses can share that same 'Checkmate' situation, but usually we're left with the few coded outcomes.

That's why I think people resort to killing each other.

Quote from: My 2 sids on September 24, 2009, 08:24:58 PM

There is PKing because players decide to PK

Players do play a role in what happens in game, so can't blame something on some "system"

PK isn't the most efficient for your Character -- it is most efficient to "win" at the game (a player reason)

Everyone who's ever pk'd knows that the fastest way to die and 'lose' the game by this definition is to go out and pk somebody else.  If you pk you will be pk'd without fail.  It's a law of nature on Zalanthas.  The people trying to 'win' at the game are the ones upset by losing their character before they reached level 30 and led the quest for the golden sword.

At the very least it's a feasible argument.

My real point, and it's more of a bunny trail really is that this whole 'win the game' concept has had a good, long run on the boards and I think it's time we phase it out.  It's a very loaded, very bandwagon phrase which ends up entirely slanted by the paradigm of the person using it.

Every player has a different opinion and moral judgment on the topic of pk.  So does every staff member, or at least it seems that way.

My thoughts on pk are that it's a legitimate part of the game and that you're PC just as entitled to a satisfying life/death on Zalanthas as a random person is in RL and that a player needs to be satisfied with whatever they end up with, a cliche-ic 'live every day as your last' sort of approach.  I also think pk is a very unpredictable, exhilarating type of rp to engage in... unless you way out-gun the character you're trying to take out.  It can be a similar rush to a high-stakes round of poker.  I also think most pk's could be easily avoided and that they typically happen because a character practically asked for it (I include myself and the times my own characters have been pk'd in this as well).

I don't present this opinion as something that should be taken as any kind of objective, moral truth about roleplaying on Armageddon but simply to make the point that we all have opinions on the issue and we all play together with these different opinions.  You have to play with me and my philosophy, I have to play with you and yours and we all have to bend to the imms' arbitration.  This is a really good discussion that will improve everybody's enjoyment of the game but posts coming from a self-ingratiating moral high ground aren't going to get through to anybody.  Stories and examples of fun, effective alternatives to pk and personal experience will.

Quote from: Jdr on September 24, 2009, 10:15:00 PM
If we're encouraging less PK, why is it that the staff are slowly but surely relieving high leadership roles of their governmental rights (such as, for example, forced bondage or slavery)? It seems a little contradictory.

That's the whole issue, most characters WOULDN'T kill  --- however brutal a society they live in, they're not psychotic killers.

ICly things like maiming, branding, public ridicule, slavery, etc would all be the same.




** speaking of slavery,  would it make a difference if time was a factor?  What if we reworked how slavery was done in the society -- allowing for more PC freedom?

Perhaps minor criminals and the very poor are only enslaved for a few months to a year (no more than what would be required of any other organization)    Surely then people wouldn't feel like they need to store or kill off their PC because they _know_ eventually circumstances will change.



EDITED TO ADD

Maybe this is where I'm differing.   As a player,  if I'm sitting behind the screen and another player is willing to take the time to actually role-play out not only one scene but all consequences afterward...  that gets me jazzed because hey I (as a player) am suddenly part of a plot/ living PC history; even if it is at the cost of PC's pain.

What's frustrating is when I'm out of the loop and someone just up and kills off my PC.  It's like "hey, your PC is so unnecessary to the game... might as well just remove him/her from the game entirely"

Quote from: My 2 sids on September 24, 2009, 10:41:35 PM

Quote from: Jdr on September 24, 2009, 10:15:00 PM
If we're encouraging less PK, why is it that the staff are slowly but surely relieving high leadership roles of their governmental rights (such as, for example, forced bondage or slavery)? It seems a little contradictory.

That's the whole issue, most characters WOULDN'T kill  --- however brutal a society they live in, they're not psychotic killers.

ICly things like maiming, branding, public ridicule, slavery, etc would all be the same.




** speaking of slavery,  would it make a difference if time was a factor?  What if we reworked how slavery was done in the society -- allowing for more PC freedom?

Perhaps minor criminals and the very poor are only enslaved for a few months to a year (no more than what would be required of any other organization)    Surely then people wouldn't feel like they need to store or kill off their PC because they _know_ eventually circumstances will change.

I think most characters would definately kill.  I think most of us that post on this board would kill if we were placed in Zalanthas and traveled as many spans of lawless deserts and alleys and were subject to an environment full of brutality the way our characters are.

We're all approaching this issue as people who have probably never even had to kill the food we eat.

But I suppose this is boiling down to our thoughts on human nature if we go this route, instead of what makes for the best kind of rp.

Quote from: roughneck on September 24, 2009, 10:47:09 PM
But I suppose this is boiling down to our thoughts on human nature if we go this route, instead of what makes for the best kind of rp.

Which goes back to my original point... this isn't Anarchy!    However brutal the IC world is, there has been enough peace and non-killing to establish highly sophisticated civilizations!!    As long as there is a shred of hope in the system -- people will willingly go along. 

All societies take some kind of stand against murder because if the death rate exceeds the birth rate, the society ends.

This is a non-issue.

It's a MUD, where you use code to back up your actions. If your character, not the player, is within their rights to mutilate, murder, betray, or corrupt as they will, so be it.

I find it odd to have a staff member make such a general 'stance' statement, where obviously there can be no specific examples. PKing, or rather, one character killing another character, is commonplace in Armageddon. Should it be the OOC 'first decision' in a situation? I've been in situations where killing my character was not only feasible, but what ICly should have happened, and I felt the other player OOCly holding back. Do I blame them? No. Empathy for other human beings is paramount in a situation where you are about to permanently KILL another person. But -- Again, if the character should do it, the player should do it.

one time, this ho got all up in my grill.  she called me her baby daddy.  that was bad for the family business.  so i poisoned her ass, 'splained why she was "fronting", then got all up in that bitch.

with my knife.

I'd just like to say that there's not enough conflict between PCs in game right now. And while this might seem counterintuitive, that's why I think PK isn't always the best option. PK is an immediate end to the conflict, which is kind of sad, since its so rare these days.

Quote from: jcljules on September 25, 2009, 12:29:08 AM
I'd just like to say that there's not enough conflict between PCs in game right now. And while this might seem counterintuitive, that's why I think PK isn't always the best option. PK is an immediate end to the conflict, which is kind of sad, since its so rare these days.

Just to play devil's advocate, this isn't always the case. Many a lengthy rivalry and plot has formed as a result of someone or another being murdered. Revenge, cover-ups, frantic searches, struggles for leadership... the death of one character can often start more conflict than it ends.

All I can say is this: If you have a problem with the way a player killed your PC instead of using another method of punishment, use the complaint feature within the request tool.

That's all there is to it. Sometimes the person being killed gives no other recourse, but to kill them off.

Quote from: musashi on September 24, 2009, 09:30:20 PM

Quote from: Niamh on September 24, 2009, 09:23:19 PM
This is a game that focuses heavily on roleplay.  Why does the damage done to a PC need to be coded?

Because a lot of folks don't trust other folks to roll with it?

Agreed.

Still, I have had good experiences for the most part when it comes to that ... but coded results would certainly make me more confident.

First off, we ask players not to enslave other PCs because of the restrictive nature of the role of slave.  A slave role has to rely on other people for a great deal, and it can end up tedious and limiting.

Second, I am not trying to discourage people from killing others at all.  I'm not trying to criticize you and tell you that you all suck.  The entire point of this thread was to get people thinking about alternatives to killing, and what sorts of fun and interesting things those options can bring about.

I've "not" killed people, plenty, with several characters I've had. I've seen the results of "not" killing them. Frankly, I'm looking forward to the next time I am in a position of coded ability, so that I can actually kill someone for a change. Logging in every day to more and more conflict, more and more drama, heaped on top of itself, just because you let 5 people live who you really WANTED to kill and now all 5 of them are more powerful than you and can kick your ass and have templars doing their bidding..

is not fun. At all. Next time the opportunity/need/desire arises, I'mma kill the bitch and get on with MY story. I've given everyone else THEIR story. It's my turn.

I find it odd that players don't trust one another.    Where's the separation between OOC and IC if people aren't willing to disconnect long enough from their PC's to enjoy the game (plots, twists, turns, etc) with fellow gammers?

Quote from: My 2 sids on September 25, 2009, 09:16:14 AM
I find it odd that players don't trust one another.    Where's the separation between OOC and IC if people aren't willing to disconnect long enough from their PC's to enjoy the game (plots, twists, turns, etc) with fellow gammers?

Idealism is cool, but it gets characters killed. I think most of us have had a few too many bad experiences to trust other character's players without seeing how they play.

True.  But, isn't there a difference between idealism and holding ourselves to high standards?

If PKing is regarded as the only logical reaction to any situation,  than what is the difference between Arm and any other hack-n-slash mud?

***

If role-play is the cornerstone of the game, than we have to allow role-play to happen.   And that means allowing the PCs to react to situations in a way that is realistic in proportion. 

Yes, the code allows one lone PC to go from one dinosaur-sized creature to another, freely killing anything the PC happens across -- yet, I don't believe the majority of players here would say "Oh, well the docs say it's a harsh world and PCs have more physical stamina than on Earth -- so that's totally realistic!"  Rather, I think many players would say "well, realistically, the PCs may try to avoid/ walk around dangerous animals; they may go and gather friends (build up a large plot of training and group organizing); or maybe the PC would get half-way through fighting and pull back because it's realistic to be scared after being hurt badly"


I don't see this thread as discouraging PK.  But, I do believe there are those who "socially twink"  who go through the game establishing their PC by means of rampant/  disproportional elimination of anything they deem as a hinder to building a super-powerful PC.

Quote from: My 2 sids on September 25, 2009, 09:39:35 AM
TBut, I do believe there are those who "socially twink"  who go through the game establishing their PC by means of rampant/  disproportional elimination of anything they deem as a hinder to building a super-powerful PC.

That seems pretty realistic to me though.

Death builds stories as well. Life is cheap in Casablanca.

It's also a powerful tool for immersion.

Keep up the killings, please.

Quote from: Yam on September 25, 2009, 09:46:38 AM

Quote from: My 2 sids on September 25, 2009, 09:39:35 AM
TBut, I do believe there are those who "socially twink"  who go through the game establishing their PC by means of rampant/  disproportional elimination of anything they deem as a hinder to building a super-powerful PC.

That seems pretty realistic to me though.

Why?  How?  Elaborate please?   How did these people establish such a complex societal hierarchy if people simply kill randomly?

QuoteTBut, I do believe there are those who "socially twink"  who go through the game establishing their PC by means of rampant/  disproportional elimination of anything they deem as a hinder to building a super-powerful PC.

I don't see the word random in there myself M2S.

And I find it not only realistic, but fitting with arm docs.

I've had characters killed, for various reasons. Even occasionally because I've made an enemy or am a hindrance in some way. Those are the best ways to die, rather than via npc critter death.

But I've also enjoyed rp where my character has been beaten, captured, and a lot of other too ic things that I can't go into right now. I love those characters best. When I can look at them and say 'this scar was gotten from such and such because he said she was being insubordinate.' and so on. Those characters have real stories. Hardships to deal with, possible revenge to plot or at the very least pulling herself to her feet again.

I like the creative alternatives much more.

Quote from: My 2 sids on September 25, 2009, 09:56:06 AM

Quote from: Yam on September 25, 2009, 09:46:38 AM

Quote from: My 2 sids on September 25, 2009, 09:39:35 AM
TBut, I do believe there are those who "socially twink"  who go through the game establishing their PC by means of rampant/  disproportional elimination of anything they deem as a hinder to building a super-powerful PC.

That seems pretty realistic to me though.

Why?  How?  Elaborate please?   How did these people establish such a complex societal hierarchy if people simply kill randomly?

Being a 'devil' adovcate here. Supposedly, the PC are a little bit 'above average' then general vpopulation. A little bit more ambitious, a little bit more industrious, a little bit more resourceful. Combine those three into one mix, you get a perfect murderer.

Now that I finished playing the advocate, I would say that no matter how much 'sense' the desire to eliminate every potential threat makes, to do so is to kill the game you're playing.

Roughly a year ago, rinth was a pretty barren zone in terms of playerbase. Were there leaders there? There were, maxed characters who were of the kind who preferred to squash opposition, instead of playing with it. The result was that the zone remained barren, but the two or three players just sitting on what they got. After my character came to that zone and spent three weeks 'engaging' newly created rinthies in plots, instead of annihilating them, the labyrinth became a thriving zone, and I would hopefully think is so still.

So yeah. Does killing your opposition keep your character 'safe'? It might, but ... then you're not playing the right mud.

QuoteIf PKing is regarded as the only logical reaction to any situation,  than what is the difference between Arm and any other hack-n-slash mud?

Nice rhetoric, but no one is suggesting that this is happening. PK is NOT regarded as the "only logical reaction to any situation." I don't think anyone is complaining that it is. No one that I'm aware of, rolls up characters whose entire MO consists of PK.

Sometimes, killing a character is -exactly- the most logical reaction. Not "any" situation. If someone is twinking up his combat skills and then running around PKing every time he "has a situation", then by all means, report it to the staff and I'm sure they'll be grateful for the heads up. I haven't heard that this is happening. If you are hearing that it's happening, then perhaps you should stop listening to OOC gossip channels.

This subject is a difficult one.  

Assassinating people in-game can lead to some extremely defensive behavior, OOCly and ICly.  I remember a point many years ago when I was 4 for 4 on being assassinated whenever I was invited into a noble's estate.  I'd be led to a back room, have the door closed and locked, and have the noble's PC cronies or NPC guards kill me for whatever reason.  The issue with taking the "high road" in these situations is that the "high road" and the "death of my character" start to become synonymous, and we become predictably protective about our characters.

We like our characters.  We like the friends that we've made.  We've enjoyed the small and large rewards over the several months we've played them.  We've enjoyed the progress we've made on our mini-plots and personal goals.  We're excited when we log in, and we look forward to making the next big step forward.

And then we get shoved into a closet with three NPC guards along with an "order all kill <my hopes and dreams>" and it's over.

And sometimes the "high road" doesn't reward us in the way that we hope.  Someone always seems to be willing to take the low road and we begin the process anew.  Eventually, some adopt the mentality that if they want to enjoy themselves and retain control of our characters, they occasionally have to sneak down the "low road", because the "high road" has been hijacked.

I've rarely lost a character to another common-type PC and felt cheated.  My most frustrating experiences have all come at the hands of people in positions of extreme power or influence.  While I do feel murder is an integral part to the game, we could probably benefit by seeing less murder (and more creative solutions) practiced by those characters with the power and position to more easily pursue an alternative -- especially special application leaders such as templars, nobles, GMH family leaders, etc...

See, I think part of it is a lack of emotes even when being killed, people ABUSING codes.

Situation one: If a woman were defending for her life and begging not to be killed- would there be a moment of hesitation?
This situation entirely lacked emotes on their part. It was slightly ungratifying because it showed me how people in positions of coded power are too corrupt for me to deal with on a day-to-day in such and such place.

Situation two: If a person draws a knife, (I was attempting to role-play something at that point) is your first instinct always to become the aggressor?
Trapped in an area- someone was scaring her, she takes out a knife because she wants to try and use it to cut down the door or something. An automatic reaction from the opposite character- did magick to call up some animals to dispatch her. This is bad role-play from anyone who has magick karma, in my opinion. So the lesson I learned in this situation was to say OOC: Let me RP something out, I'm not attacking.

Situation three: Would an assassin TRULY assassinate someone in a crowded inn, in the middle of the day?
It was a ridiculous time. She was told to come to XXX location, and she did, sat down. I think I went gone: grabbing a soda. When I came back she'd been stabbed with something I didn't have cures for and was in combat with a "cloaked figure" who I knew to be xxx person. He wasn't being nabbed by soldiers. I ran to the Gaj, not yet knowing the nature of poisons, hoping for help. Everyone just looked, I was able to mumble out a few words before she died. Not incriminating ones though.

Quote from: Lizzie on September 25, 2009, 10:20:40 AM

QuoteIf PKing is regarded as the only logical reaction to any situation,  than what is the difference between Arm and any other hack-n-slash mud?

Nice rhetoric, but no one is suggesting that this is happening. PK is NOT regarded as the "only logical reaction to any situation." I don't think anyone is complaining that it is. No one that I'm aware of, rolls up characters whose entire MO consists of PK.

Sometimes, killing a character is -exactly- the most logical reaction. Not "any" situation. If someone is twinking up his combat skills and then running around PKing every time he "has a situation", then by all means, report it to the staff and I'm sure they'll be grateful for the heads up. I haven't heard that this is happening. If you are hearing that it's happening, then perhaps you should stop listening to OOC gossip channels.

You're not listening.    Have you read anything on this board? You know, it's possible to discuss role-play w/o trying to judge individual players (which seems to be your intention).   Again, I'm not sure why you're against even holding any sort of philosophical discussion by trying to make it personal.



My "twink" comment is similar to Adieren's comment ---  questioning if it's an abuse of codes to simply PK instead of role-playing a non-coded solution.

People are saying PK may indeed make sense to the majority of the population the majority of the time.   THAT is not true.  If you believe it is, please share why.

Quote from: Adieren on September 25, 2009, 12:22:20 PM
See, I think part of it is a lack of emotes even when being killed, people ABUSING codes.

Situation one: If a woman were defending for her life and begging not to be killed- would there be a moment of hesitation?
This situation entirely lacked emotes on their part. It was slightly ungratifying because it showed me how people in positions of coded power are too corrupt for me to deal with on a day-to-day in such and such place.

Situation two: If a person draws a knife, (I was attempting to role-play something at that point) is your first instinct always to become the aggressor?
Trapped in an area- someone was scaring her, she takes out a knife because she wants to try and use it to cut down the door or something. An automatic reaction from the opposite character- did magick to call up some animals to dispatch her. This is bad role-play from anyone who has magick karma, in my opinion. So the lesson I learned in this situation was to say OOC: Let me RP something out, I'm not attacking.

Situation three: Would an assassin TRULY assassinate someone in a crowded inn, in the middle of the day?
It was a ridiculous time. She was told to come to XXX location, and she did, sat down. I think I went gone: grabbing a soda. When I came back she'd been stabbed with something I didn't have cures for and was in combat with a "cloaked figure" who I knew to be xxx person. He wasn't being nabbed by soldiers. I ran to the Gaj, not yet knowing the nature of poisons, hoping for help. Everyone just looked, I was able to mumble out a few words before she died. Not incriminating ones though.

This is not a MUSH. Those things are all perfectly realistic and legitimate.

Situation one: Uh, yeah. People do this sort of thing all the time in real life.

Situation two: Someone draws a knife. What the fuck else are they going to do with it, carve up a ginka fruit? Maybe. Why take chances?

Situation three: This happens a lot in real life. Do a google search for africa + machete + murder.

Quote from: KankWhisperer on September 24, 2009, 10:21:13 PM
I think its just as bad to leave someone alive because you think it will be fun to have an arch nemesis oocly as it is to kill someone because oocly you like to kill other players. If your character would kill them, then do it, if not then don't.

-Exactly- how I feel about it. It is every bit as wrong to -not- kill someone for OOC reasons as it is to kill someone for OOC reasons.

I wouldn't have been so upset if they had given me REAL role-play to make it gratifying rather than just a disappointment. And as some of those situations were on my second and fourth character... it rather soured my opinion of the game's players.

Quote from: jhunter on September 25, 2009, 12:41:47 PM

Quote from: KankWhisperer on September 24, 2009, 10:21:13 PM
I think its just as bad to leave someone alive because you think it will be fun to have an arch nemesis oocly as it is to kill someone because oocly you like to kill other players. If your character would kill them, then do it, if not then don't.

-Exactly- how I feel about it. It is every bit as wrong to -not- kill someone for OOC reasons as it is to kill someone for OOC reasons.

Sorry, sounds like flawed logic to me.   That's like saying it's bad to -not- wait around for PC merchants/ PC guards/ PC whatever  when ICly the NPC is standing right there.  

We are, playing a game, not becoming the character,  thus there is some obligation to do what's right and helpful for other players.

Quote from: Adieren on September 25, 2009, 12:45:57 PM
I wouldn't have been so upset if they had given me REAL role-play to make it gratifying rather than just a disappointment. And as some of those situations were on my second and fourth character... it rather soured my opinion of the game's players.

What do you mean by real roleplay?

Quote from: My 2 sids on September 25, 2009, 12:47:19 PM

Quote from: jhunter on September 25, 2009, 12:41:47 PM

Quote from: KankWhisperer on September 24, 2009, 10:21:13 PM
I think its just as bad to leave someone alive because you think it will be fun to have an arch nemesis oocly as it is to kill someone because oocly you like to kill other players. If your character would kill them, then do it, if not then don't.

-Exactly- how I feel about it. It is every bit as wrong to -not- kill someone for OOC reasons as it is to kill someone for OOC reasons.

Sorry, sounds like flawed logic to me.   That's like saying it's bad to -not- wait around for PC merchants/ PC guards/ PC whatever  when ICly the NPC is standing right there. 

We are, playing a game, not becoming the character,  thus there is some obligation to do what's right and helpful for other players.

We're playing a game where you play a character. There is no obligation to do what's right and helpful for other players.

Now, in an effort to change the tone of this thread, I will make my confessions of times I've PKed poorly:

-- I killed Ourla's PC for a very legitimate reason when I had other options available. I know she has forgiven me and it was years ago, but I still feel bad about it. I was simply too green in my noble role and in the game overall to realize that the other options I had were perfectly sufficient. I abused my power.

-- I killed Cerelum's PC for a completely legitimate reason, and with permission from authorities, in a situation where there were no other alternatives, without sufficient emoting or scene-setting (there was some, just not enough). While I didn't HAVE to do better for him, I could have, and I should have. I had all the power and I didn't use it properly.

I can't think of any other PKs that weren't completely earned or where I didn't play them to the hilt.

The point here is that becoming defensive either way is silly and unproductive. Those of us who have PKed, it's undoubtedly true that some of the PKs you carried out were not necessary, or were poorly done, etc. Those of us who have been PKed, yes, you've undoubtedly been the victim of some that were not necessary or were poorly done. So, don't do that stuff to other players.

Let's just all learn from each other on this and work on improving.

Back to Niamh's more general topic, I'd post a list of specific possible ways to get non-lethal vengeance, but most of them I consider too IC and/or I actually prefer to keep them for myself to pursue. Potentially I could be identified by doing some of the stuff I do if I put it out here, and I'd rather not be associated with my PCs that way. I guess that's kind of selfish but I really don't want to have my creativity stolen or have my PCs be OOCly targeted.

QuoteSituation three: This happens a lot in real life. Do a google search for africa + machete + murder.

Don't even need google.

JFK, middle of the day, large crowd.
Lincoln, Crowded theatre.
Ronold, my fav pres, attempt on a crowded street in the middle of the day.
With Google we could come up with thousands more.
Wasn't King gunned down at a speech or something?

Quote from: X-D on September 25, 2009, 12:52:13 PM

QuoteSituation three: This happens a lot in real life. Do a google search for africa + machete + murder.

Don't even need google.

JFK, middle of the day, large crowd.
Lincoln, Crowded theatre.
Ronold, my fav pres, attempt on a crowded street in the middle of the day.
With Google we could come up with thousands more.
Wasn't King gunned down at a speech or something?

I just wanted to give example of close in stuff. There's plenty with the 'throw' skill. Or, uh, shoot.

-'Sids, it sounds to me like there is never a logical reason for you to kill, even on Zalanthas. But, I'll bet you don't hesitate to or look down on someone for killing a NPC that is threatening their lives or livelyhood. That's the difference, you're going out of character to prevent killing the character because there is a player behind it. That isn't roleplaying. Your example calling it flawed has nothing to do with the situation. Plenty of times I have stood near a npc while wishing up for animation rather than ignoring them because they are npc and tracking down a player character.

I believe I've said this before, but killing other pcs, while it might end one plot, often sprouts new plots. A few of the longest running plots I've ever been involved in started because of a pc being killed.

Oh, and just because we (with our civilized, modern day mentalities) don't believe that killing was the correct response, it does not mean that our pcs wouldn't believe it to be exactly the correct response.

Quote from: jhunter on September 25, 2009, 12:41:47 PM

Quote from: KankWhisperer on September 24, 2009, 10:21:13 PM
I think its just as bad to leave someone alive because you think it will be fun to have an arch nemesis oocly as it is to kill someone because oocly you like to kill other players. If your character would kill them, then do it, if not then don't.

-Exactly- how I feel about it. It is every bit as wrong to -not- kill someone for OOC reasons as it is to kill someone for OOC reasons.

That's where I stand on the whole thing. It's cool when alternatives to murder are found, but only when it makes sense. And I don't just mean when the victim "forces" you to do it, either. Also, sometimes character deaths make the situation that much more intense and interesting for those left alive. A couple of my first character's best friends were wasted by his mentor in one swoop and believe me, the effect on my character was -much- more drastic than if they had made it home with a missing limb or whatever.

Yes, it sucks when your character's killed by overwhelming coded power, but can you really expect most rational beings to try to take someone's life from a position of weakness?

Implement post-combat rp by creating a pre-death incapacitated mode. There will be less death.

Implement the ability to cripple/maim, but leave these players alive. Ie, cut off hand --agil. Smash knees --endurance. Cut out an eye --room look distance.

There is less creativity in revenge because there are less avenues for punishment. I remember I played a Mul in the rinth that wroked at a bar there. Elves would come in this bar and talk smack. So I would beat them and then OOCly not wanting to kill them I would drop them in a well and leave them to fate. Then the same elves would come back and talk smack again.

What's a boy to do? Oocly - I didn't want to kill them. But some of them, I didn't have any other avenues. Sometimes you can take people's money and equipment, but what do you do to someone who doesn't care about that?

Of course, I'm speaking from a position of power. Another example - you're a templar and you encounter a n00b. ICly you need to punish the n00b - but the n00b is well a n00b and is being ridiculous. You don't want to kill him - but eventually you have to, because you don't have any other avenues. So you make the right decision and kill him publicly and hope the scene is enough to bring him/her back to the game and that you've enriched other's time by making it an event.

But at the end of the day, if you could cut off his hand? Brand him? Banish him? There's 100 other punishment options - but none of them are enforced. Death is enforced and it's final and speaks heavily to your point.

Quote from: My 2 sids on September 25, 2009, 12:25:50 PM

People are saying PK may indeed make sense to the majority of the population the majority of the time.   THAT is not true.  If you believe it is, please share why.

I'm saying, that people are NOT saying that. I'm saying, that if you are hearing that, then you might be hearing it from some OOC channels. Because I'm not seeing anyone say that here on the GDB.

I know it doesn't make sense to me, the majority of the time. But I can't speak on behalf of the majority, because I don't know the majority, nor do I speak -to- the majority. I know what I read here. And what I read here, is that -no one- is suggesting that PK is the only logical option in any situation.

I must be an exception.  I've never had an experience end in PK because I extended trust to the other player.  And I have been in lots of different situations that could have resulted in PK.  I've always thought it was a reflection of character attitude, posturing, and injecting some uncertainty as to whether the other person could suceed into the situation.

I have been PK'd, of course.  But it was always the relentless kind with no quarter asked or given, with only one exception.  My PC a niliazi, the other a elkrosian.  My PC a vivaduan, the other a nilazi.  My PC escaping from the clutches of a criminal gang, hunted down and killed.  My PC a well known Krathi, killed by Blackmoon.  My PC a halfling.  My PC a gith.  Etc.

Maybe I am just lucky, but it has always worked for me, over the last 15+ years or so.

Quote from: Zoltan on September 25, 2009, 12:59:02 PM

Quote from: jhunter on September 25, 2009, 12:41:47 PM

Quote from: KankWhisperer on September 24, 2009, 10:21:13 PM
I think its just as bad to leave someone alive because you think it will be fun to have an arch nemesis oocly as it is to kill someone because oocly you like to kill other players. If your character would kill them, then do it, if not then don't.

-Exactly- how I feel about it. It is every bit as wrong to -not- kill someone for OOC reasons as it is to kill someone for OOC reasons.

That's where I stand on the whole thing. It's cool when alternatives to murder are found, but only when it makes sense.

Right. Murder has its place, but so do the other options that are out there.

Get rid of thoughts that murder is the definite solution to problems, and start to think that if you kill every problem you have, the game's going to get pretty stale. Then again, most people don't kill everything.

Basically, aggressors - as a courtesy to other players, do what makes sense for your character.
Victims - as a courtesy to other players, accept the fact that your character has been victimized, and it was likely for a good reason. Then play along with it.

QuoteBasically, aggressors - as a courtesy to other players, do what makes sense for your character.
Victims - as a courtesy to other players, accept the fact that your character has been victimized, and it was likely for a good reason. Then play along with it.

Well said.

Quote from: jhunter on September 25, 2009, 12:56:58 PM
-'Sids, it sounds to me like there is never a logical reason for you to kill, even on Zalanthas. But, I'll bet you don't hesitate to or look down on someone for killing a NPC that is threatening their lives or livelyhood. That's the difference, you're going out of character to prevent killing the character because there is a player behind it. That isn't roleplaying. Your example calling it flawed has nothing to do with the situation. Plenty of times I have stood near a npc while wishing up for animation rather than ignoring them because they are npc and tracking down a player character.

I believe I've said this before, but killing other pcs, while it might end one plot, often sprouts new plots. A few of the longest running plots I've ever been involved in started because of a pc being killed.

Oh, and just because we (with our civilized, modern day mentalities) don't believe that killing was the correct response, it does not mean that our pcs wouldn't believe it to be exactly the correct response.

Maybe what I'm trying to say is that murder should be done with the understanding that it goes against normal logic.  In game, we have many defined groups w/ a lot of tension between them.  BUT, it would be considered stupid for one group to blatantly attack another -- all groups realize as terrible as the system is, it's still a system which works.   The templarate need the nobles; the nobility need the templarate.  The mundane need magickers and vise versa.  If Amos wants to spit on every elf he sees, fine.  But, if Amos starts to kill every elf he sees -- that calls into question the entire system of the society THAT WILL BE PUT DOWN BY CONCERNED CITIZENS.  

YES, it's tough, cruel, harsh world in which our PCs live.  BUT, halfings do the logical thing of consuming whatever meat is available -- yet these other races still place a taboo on such behavior.  Some things, even in Zalanthas, are considered "savage".   And with real, logical, IC reasons.


Secondly, There is no "me" in multi-player.  Sorry, but seems to me a large part of "friendly competition" does include making sure _everyone_ has fun.

Quote from: Yam on September 25, 2009, 12:47:56 PM

Quote from: Adieren on September 25, 2009, 12:45:57 PM
I wouldn't have been so upset if they had given me REAL role-play to make it gratifying rather than just a disappointment. And as some of those situations were on my second and fourth character... it rather soured my opinion of the game's players.

What do you mean by real roleplay?

I mean that I was in a situation where they could have done a lot of mean, evil stuff to be torturous, and apparently that was part of their characters, and NOTHING. They didn't emote their fighting, they didn't emote anything. There was the conversation and BOOM. Here's us with our poisoned weapons to kill you because you tried to help.

Quote from: jmordetsky on September 25, 2009, 01:01:07 PM
Implement post-combat rp by creating a pre-death incapacitated mode. There will be less death.

Implement the ability to cripple/maim, but leave these players alive. Ie, cut off hand --agil. Smash knees --endurance. Cut out an eye --room look distance.

There is less creativity in revenge because there are less avenues for punishment. I remember I played a Mul in the rinth that wroked at a bar there. Elves would come in this bar and talk smack. So I would beat them and then OOCly not wanting to kill them I would drop them in a well and leave them to fate. Then the same elves would come back and talk smack again.

What's a boy to do? Oocly - I didn't want to kill them. But some of them, I didn't have any other avenues. Sometimes you can take people's money and equipment, but what do you do to someone who doesn't care about that?

Of course, I'm speaking from a position of power. Another example - you're a templar and you encounter a n00b. ICly you need to punish the n00b - but the n00b is well a n00b and is being ridiculous. You don't want to kill him - but eventually you have to, because you don't have any other avenues. So you make the right decision and kill him publicly and hope the scene is enough to bring him/her back to the game and that you've enriched other's time by making it an event.

But at the end of the day, if you could cut off his hand? Brand him? Banish him? There's 100 other punishment options - but none of them are enforced. Death is enforced and it's final and speaks heavily to your point.

Implement a way to codedly lower the max skill percentages forever.
Implement a way to codedly lower your skills for *a long time in real life
Implement a way to maim characters and remove limbs, yet keep them alive.
Implement a way to forcibly add scars to characters.

ooo.  jmordetsky, we're on the same page here.

in my opinion, when there are more tools to use to interact with people, there will be less outright killings.

Quote from: Cutthroat on September 25, 2009, 01:10:35 PM
Basically, aggressors - as a courtesy to other players, do what makes sense for your character.
Victims - as a courtesy to other players, accept the fact that your character has been victimized, and it was likely for a good reason. Then play along with it.

It seems to me there are two directions for Arm.

One, we can keep playing this "catch the twink" race where we try to make more and more rules and regulations to ensure this small minority of players don't take advantage.

Two, we can play to the majority of players who are here (and who stay here) because they truly want to role-play.


Yeah, it sucks to loose a PC to some twink who doesn't role-play realistically.   But, isn't it a lot worse to spend major amounts of time and effort trying to play the game around this minority of players (of which many will get bored with the non-hack and slash lifestyle and leave anyway)  than to play the game around the majority of players who are here for the long run and try to play their PCs in a well-rounded, realistic manor?  

What are New Players learning?  What is going to become the norm and expectations for players?

I agree that there could be more coded avenues for physical punishment than there already are and that some people would find it useful; the only thing I'm wary of in those cases are the people who will take their non-lethal punishment then just attack a unit of soldiers, or store, since they can be restrictive (specifically to code dependent characters rather than socialites).

Quote from: My 2 sids on September 25, 2009, 01:18:05 PM

Maybe what I'm trying to say is that murder should be done with the understanding that it goes against normal logic.  In game, we have many defined groups w/ a lot of tension between them.  BUT, it would be considered stupid for one group to blatantly attack another -- all groups realize as terrible as the system is, it's still a system which works.   The templarate need the nobles; the nobility need the templarate.  The mundane need magickers and vise versa.  If Amos wants to spit on every elf he sees, fine.  But, if Amos starts to kill every elf he sees -- that calls into question the entire system of the society THAT WILL BE PUT DOWN BY CONCERNED CITIZENS.  

YES, it's tough, cruel, harsh world in which our PCs live.  BUT, halfings do the logical thing of consuming whatever meat is available -- yet these other races still place a taboo on such behavior.  Some things, even in Zalanthas, are considered "savage".   And with real, logical, IC reasons.


Secondly, There is no "me" in multi-player.  Sorry, but seems to me a large part of "friendly competition" does include making sure _everyone_ has fun.

There is no normal logic. People will do what they can do. A commoner is unlikely to ruin a templars reputation but they could throw a poison knife in his eye. It's much more within their realm of resources and experience then trying to come up with some elaborate plot. I think most people in reality that are maimed is because the other person FAILED to kill them, not because the other person was sadistic. They escaped somehow or they were thought to be  dead. Who, besides people in comics, wants to leave their enemies alive to come back later?

I think that murder is not the logical solution for you if you are in power in a situation. Why change things? Everything seems to be slanted in your favor. When you have no power and are used and abused, it makes much more sense to kill. That's why when we have revolutions PEOPLE HAVE TO DIE. This so called normal logic only applies as long as everyone agrees that they can live with the current situation. As soon as someone or some group decides that they can't, the blood must flow.

Quote from: My 2 sids on September 25, 2009, 01:18:05 PM

Quote from: jhunter on September 25, 2009, 12:56:58 PM
-'Sids, it sounds to me like there is never a logical reason for you to kill, even on Zalanthas. But, I'll bet you don't hesitate to or look down on someone for killing a NPC that is threatening their lives or livelyhood. That's the difference, you're going out of character to prevent killing the character because there is a player behind it. That isn't roleplaying. Your example calling it flawed has nothing to do with the situation. Plenty of times I have stood near a npc while wishing up for animation rather than ignoring them because they are npc and tracking down a player character.

I believe I've said this before, but killing other pcs, while it might end one plot, often sprouts new plots. A few of the longest running plots I've ever been involved in started because of a pc being killed.

Oh, and just because we (with our civilized, modern day mentalities) don't believe that killing was the correct response, it does not mean that our pcs wouldn't believe it to be exactly the correct response.

Maybe what I'm trying to say is that murder should be done with the understanding that it goes against normal logic.  In game, we have many defined groups w/ a lot of tension between them.  BUT, it would be considered stupid for one group to blatantly attack another -- all groups realize as terrible as the system is, it's still a system which works.   The templarate need the nobles; the nobility need the templarate.  The mundane need magickers and vise versa.  If Amos wants to spit on every elf he sees, fine.  But, if Amos starts to kill every elf he sees -- that calls into question the entire system of the society THAT WILL BE PUT DOWN BY CONCERNED CITIZENS.  

YES, it's tough, cruel, harsh world in which our PCs live.  BUT, halfings do the logical thing of consuming whatever meat is available -- yet these other races still place a taboo on such behavior.  Some things, even in Zalanthas, are considered "savage".   And with real, logical, IC reasons.


Secondly, There is no "me" in multi-player.  Sorry, but seems to me a large part of "friendly competition" does include making sure _everyone_ has fun.

You're applying real world, modern-day logic and morals to a world that is much more primitive and lacks alot of those morals that you're trying to apply to it. I guess what I'm saying is that maybe you should look back on our RL history a bit and see how things were when things were more primitive and people thought differently than they do now.

In no way am I saying that one should kill all the time. What I'm saying is that players whose characters would do that shouldn't be looked down on OOClly for doing it, if it's what their character would do. As a templar, the first time I did it, I maimed other pcs, I only ever killed one (outside of a war situation) and it wasn't my doing, they foolishly attacked me and basically suicided their character. Other times, I've had non-sponsored pcs that killed anyone that posed a threat or crossed them. It was insurance that, those who considered crossing him inthe future, thought long and hard about what this could mean to them should they do so. This practice is still done in modern-day society.

Quote from: BetaalMy most frustrating experiences have all come at the hands of people in positions of extreme power or influence.  While I do feel murder is an integral part to the game, we could probably benefit by seeing less murder (and more creative solutions) practiced by those characters with the power and position to more easily pursue an alternative -- especially special application leaders such as templars, nobles, GMH family leaders, etc...

I can see your point Betaal.  But I also see Lizzie's point and agree with her too.

I can understand how upsetting it is to lose a PC, often why it will lead the people to do stupid things beyond measure.  Now, that being said, let me state it this way:  Everytime I decided not to kill someone but give them a second chance (after overpowering them to the point of death) I lived to regret it.  I will give you two stories about it, and it involves everyone's favorite villain:  Quick.

*     *        *       *           *

1- The end of the world plot:  After the end of the world had been announced, every clan got some sort of quest involving repeated RPTs to build up to a final HRPT kind.  It was also announced that PCs would have a high chance of affecting the end of the world (so every clan were encouraged to be part of history by completing their quests first.  In those times my clan were given a vague set of RPTs as well and we were told what would happen if we failed and apparently the failure for us, from what we were told, would be devastating (in terms of losing life over it)..  Coincidentally, there were a group of renegade magickers who had their own RPTs, and from the information we collected it seemed so much like their quest was building up for our failure.  We spied on them for several days and we found out they nearly finished it whereas we were only at the beginning.    We panicked, and at the time I had nearly half the clan members with me (and the magicker group was nearly full in numbers as well, maybe missing two people).  We decided we will attack them immediately and we did.  A surprise attack and we kidnapped 4 magickers in one attack, two of them died during transporting them to our quarters.  We tortured them to get all the information we can, and we found only part of the information, apparently their leader was not there at the moment.  The tortured members were killed later so that they would not be able to finish the quest.  We attacked once more and two more were kidnapped, they both died during transportation (I think).  I found out there was one invisible magicker during our second attack who did not move or make a sound, so we missed her.

Now after this point, only she was alive of the whole group and I told Quick not to go after her.  I Wayed to that invisible magicker and I told her our reasoning as to why we went after her group.  I told her that we will leave her alone, if she promises she will not try to complete the quest, I even told her I would help her in other ways.  She sounded happy enough at the time and she said she will not do the quest.  Now after a few weeks, my PC  became even friendly to this magicker, speaking to her once in a while.  Later though, some other magicker friends of hers (I guess they were gone for a while for RL reasons) returned to the game and learned what happened to the renegade mages.  Just two days after their return, these folks came to our dwelling place and summoned many nasty critters around our quit safe place.  It took 45 minutes for me and Quick to clean all of the summoned creatures before anybody else could log in and die to the aggro NPCs.  
After this dangerous encounter, I spoke to the magicker girl's friend directly and learned that it was -he and his friend(s)' doing to give us a payback, and "to put something on table" to come to a compromise.  We killed both the girl and her magicker friend, and there was a third one who was not around at the time.  Just a day after we found him talking in a bar that he will destroy every single one of us for killing his friends and we killed him too.

2- But I was just fucking around: Another time, a certain magicker came into my clan's place and in the middle of all the NPCs, magicked me away.  I did not even know the magicker (I did not even see her before).  I was left in the middle of the desert that I did not even know where and immediately afterwards, I retaliated.  She ran away and about 5-10 minutes later, she quit.  I found out it was a gemmer, and a templar and a clan NPC talked over this.  Templar requested that the magicker left alive, he said we could punish her for a fee or service or any other sort but he specifically requested she should be left alive.  I accepted it coming from a clan NPC, and told the magicker she will pay 2k sids (which she did immediately) and told her there wont be any harm coming to any of my clanmates ever again, she accepted, and I told her if there is some need for a gemmer help we would need her to give us a hand, she accepted it all happily (for the record, we never asked her to do any work ever).

After a few weeks from this, I had to go to Turkey for 15 days where I did not have regular access to internet.  I returned after 15 days to find out that the magicker that we spared to live, summoned a bunch of nasty critters and killed one of my best clanmates (my second in command).  Then went out and attempted to kill another important clanmate and -nearly- managed it (Quick rescued him).  After that a bunch of shitstorm happened involving an enraged Quick (after losing a very good clanmate and barely rescuing another clanmate to a stupid mage that was supposed to be dead a few weeks ago) to chase the magicker to everywhere in Allanak until the magicker quit.
The templar who saved her first time got very upset too and they started a gemmer based hunt for the magicker (most of the mages were hunting her down as well).  Now this magicker girl though, she started immediately scouting around our clan compound (looking for someone to kill I guess) after logging in and if she cant find anyone she was logging off.  Because gemmed PCs were reported to me repeatedly they saw her storming off and returning and quitting within just a few minutes, they could not even react to her.  Now once, she managed to find me around the clan compound, attacked me with all she got and nearly killed me in one round (I was at -8 hp mind you) to be rescued by Quick.  Quick apparently beat her back and she ran away.  In three minutes, I was healed through some supernatural ways to just get the magicker (since we finally found her logged in right?) she quits again (I guess as soon as the "too excited" timer ran off).


*           *           *          *

The above being said, there were always occasional fuck ups too.  There was this time, I told Quick again that we should perhaps find a different alternative to killing a few guys.  So we take them to sit down with us, and tell them we will leave them alone if they leave us alone, they agree, go out to tell their buddies to leave us alone as well, and you know what, one of their buddies say "fuck it" and says they will gather enough people to destroy us.
Another PC and their friends, we tell them we forgave that they tried to screw us, now here is their tribute to show good faith (a fee to be paid) they say they will collect it, and instead, a few days later one of them magickally transport themselves to our quarters and shoves a magickal spear through Quick's heart (or where his heart was supposed to be).
We let some PCs alive, they just ran to the closest templar and told so much bullshit story of how we are going to destroy the world.  One of them even pulled a "mental breakdown scene" so good, I did not think the guy was capable of doing so.  Was it fun in the end for us?  NO.  I mean, I was running out of IC reasons to actually find an alternative way to death everytime. Since leaving enemies alive was bringing so much trouble ICly, it was stealing all of my fun of the game.  Everytime I face an enemy I was facing "If I kill them, I will hear more people bitching on GDB about us, if I let them alive, I will hear more people coming after us and maybe even lose clanmates on it".  Everytime Quick asked me "why are not we killing them, they are the enemy?" I did not have any reasonable answer.  

Quote from: Dar
Roughly a year ago, rinth was a pretty barren zone in terms of playerbase. Were there leaders there? There were, maxed characters who were of the kind who preferred to squash opposition, instead of playing with it. The result was that the zone remained barren, but the two or three players just sitting on what they got.

No Dar, unfortunately that is not always the case either.  A few years ago, I was a leader in rinth too.  Anytime we let someone alive, we started losing PCs because of these "I got overpowered, now I must take my revenge!" PCs were just coming there and killing folks as well.  Do you know when the rinth had the highest numbers?  When Quick showed me all those occasions of "letting someone alive means we will get fucked by these people" and convinced me we should kill enemies more often than sparing them.  There were roughly 40 regular people in Allanak, and we had 15 people in rinth.  That number fluctuated between 10-12-13 for a long time.  That was an all times high for years 2004-2005 to 2006-2007.  I did not play there in between 2005-2006 so I dont know how many people were there but I highly doubt anytime in rinth got that much.  So I get confused when people say "It takes only a few non-mundane PCs to scare everyone else from the rinth". Honestly, when rinth was scariest, it had the highest number of people there.

My point is:  MarshallDX formulated it well.  Too often, leaving people alive may be more fun than killing, but the trouble you get in return is much much greater than the fun you will probably get.

Quote from: Cutthroat on September 25, 2009, 01:34:38 PM
I agree that there could be more coded avenues for physical punishment than there already are and that some people would find it useful; the only thing I'm wary of in those cases are the people who will take their non-lethal punishment then just attack a unit of soldiers, or store, since they can be restrictive (specifically to code dependent characters rather than socialites).

Personally, I'd rather see more coded avenues of punishment that are both non-lethal and non-permanent. Stuff that would wear off over time, or could be removed. Like, getting codedly banned from a tavern or an area; being denied the ability to sell stuff to a shop or shops; annoying magickal curses; etc.

But, I think that there would need to be a larger playerbase and some attention given to the ability to hide one's identity while screwing with other people, too. Right now if you screw with someone, you're often gonna just get caught. And that's a deterrent to non-lethal screwing with. Easier to kill them and not get caught at all.

Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 25, 2009, 01:39:30 PM

Quote from: Cutthroat on September 25, 2009, 01:34:38 PM
I agree that there could be more coded avenues for physical punishment than there already are and that some people would find it useful; the only thing I'm wary of in those cases are the people who will take their non-lethal punishment then just attack a unit of soldiers, or store, since they can be restrictive (specifically to code dependent characters rather than socialites).

Personally, I'd rather see more coded avenues of punishment that are both non-lethal and non-permanent. Stuff that would wear off over time, or could be removed. Like, getting codedly banned from a tavern or an area; being denied the ability to sell stuff to a shop or shops; annoying magickal curses; etc.

But, I think that there would need to be a larger playerbase and some attention given to the ability to hide one's identity while screwing with other people, too. Right now if you screw with someone, you're often gonna just get caught. And that's a deterrent to non-lethal screwing with. Easier to kill them and not get caught at all.

Chastity belt.

Actually ghost that sounds kind of interesting. Seems like more of an argument for not killing people kinda.

Well I dont know about you, but I have more fun when my clanmates are alive rather than dead.  I get less fun (ICly and OOCly) when somebody kills folks I live and work with because I showed mercy in their killer.

Quote from: jhunter on September 25, 2009, 01:36:26 PM
You're applying real world, modern-day logic and morals to a world that is much more primitive and lacks alot of those morals that you're trying to apply to it. I guess what I'm saying is that maybe you should look back on our RL history a bit and see how things were when things were more primitive and people thought differently than they do now.

Read your own history, and some sociology and anthropology books too.

The idea of humans seeking a form of law dates back to Hammurabi!  The individual is NOT ALLOWED to do whatever the hell they want -- they have to conform.   Random, irrational  death is never supported by ANY culture EVER.   And yes, someone dieing because they sneezed on you -- is random and irrational.


I'd go so far as to say if death was so "normal" that Turki society would fall -- can't build fear of unknown difference in the hearts of folks who know for a fact death is around the corner.


What you're labeling as "modern" is really nothing more than a recipe for Anarchy.

Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 25, 2009, 01:39:30 PM

Quote from: Cutthroat on September 25, 2009, 01:34:38 PM
I agree that there could be more coded avenues for physical punishment than there already are and that some people would find it useful; the only thing I'm wary of in those cases are the people who will take their non-lethal punishment then just attack a unit of soldiers, or store, since they can be restrictive (specifically to code dependent characters rather than socialites).

Personally, I'd rather see more coded avenues of punishment that are both non-lethal and non-permanent... being denied the ability to sell stuff to a shop or shops..

That is possible... there was this one time....
Myself and a peer were having trouble with a minion that was either spamcrafting or stealing from our clan... ICly, the only justification was stealing.

We tried reprimanding the PC...  he just got smart with us.... to the point of an animated NPC guard asking to be able to kill him.
We decided to spare and pseudo-codedly maim him (using a certain staff-added tattoo).  

He _STILL_ kept trying to hurt the clan.  I asked my superiors to black-list him from our shops.
I was told it was codedly possible but that an indie crafter wasn't worth the house's efforts.

I then proceeded to have some templarate pressure added... still no change.
Not sure what ever happened to that PC, but had I ran into them again, there would have been a dagger in his back.
Of course that was after more than one attempt at trying to get them to back off and learn their place.

I agree with Ghost. Too often letting someone live simply means they get a chance to skill up and form more alliances in order to make a revenge attempt more successful. There's plenty of room for non-lethal conflict within the civilized parts of a city state, or within a clan with an authority structure. Outside of those venues, things get a lot more dangerous and with good reason.

For a staff to complain about PK...

Over 3/4 of the player deaths I have personally witnessed are when Staff A gets Group B and Group C into Location D and says "Kill".

Yeah, but those deaths are inevitably due to player stupidity. Staff isn't allowed to specifically plot the deaths of PCs, but they do put PCs into dangerous situations on purpose. Every time I've seen a PC die at an RPT, it's because the player was being dumb or inattentive.

Does nobody here know the power of near-death beatings?

Seriously, try them sometime.

Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 25, 2009, 02:12:01 PM
Yeah, but those deaths are inevitably due to player stupidity. Staff isn't allowed to specifically plot the deaths of PCs, but they do put PCs into dangerous situations on purpose. Every time I've seen a PC die at an RPT, it's because the player was being dumb or inattentive.

Yeah but it seems the end game of most plots is epic battle. Scale that down to two people and that's just a PK.

The problem with most people in these situations is that the defeated aren't simply content to stay defeated, and rarely come back and seek any kind of reconciliation or agreement (and keep to it). The motto, "If you can't beat them, join them!" seems fairly absent in dealing with rivals in Armageddon. While it's awesome to have an IC nemesis, there comes a point in time in the life of a powerful, long-lived character where your nemesi (plural?) are being counted on both hands and feet. Leaving potential rivals alive when there are multiple forces arrayed against you is not sensible, especially considering that the longer lived your character becomes, the more people will oppose you 'just because'.

I agree with Ghost. It's fun to make more plots by letting characters live sometimes, but there is a time when death is the only answer. I think this thread's purpose was to explain the finality of death. Once someone is killed, that's it; the action is irrevocable.

When you have a character that is in power, or a character that is capable of killing another, you the player need to keep this all in mind. Think for a moment before dealing out death so swiftly. Think about all the other ways you can deal with a character before killing them.

But if you've gone through the alternatives, and there is no solution other than death, Mr. McCartney said it best...

QuoteWhen You Were Young And Your Heart Was An Open Book
You Used To Say "Live And Let Live"
(You Know You Did, You Know You Did, You Know You Did)
But If This Ever Changing World In Which We're Livin'
Makes You Give In And Cry
Say "Live And Let Die"
"Live And Let Die"
"Live And Let Die"
"Live And Let Die"

If PK is sometimes the "only answer"... what's the question?

People talk about "well, we have to be realistic"  well, realistically if someone is given a punishment beating; is maimed; is intimidated by (doc-proven) betters...  than there isn't going to be retaliation to that.

And it makes me feel old but....



The idea that PK is best out of fear of retaliation (retaliation that realistically shouldn't happen ICly)  IS playing OOCly.   And if that's your stance, fine.  But say that.  Don't make up some bogus about how that would make sense ICly.

This is just getting... so good.

Quote from: Rhyden on September 25, 2009, 02:17:02 PM

But if you've gone through the alternatives, and there is no solution other than death, Mr. McCartney said it best...

Only because that's what is codedly available. I remember playing with Quick (who I always found to be very responsible as a side note) and he once RPed maiming a player who had gotten out of line. The player RPed a sort of grunt with pain and then went on doing whatever it was he was doing that gotten him in this position in the first place. He eventually got killed for doing this stuff. If the act of maiming the character had a tangible effect, the "warning" he was given wouldn't have unnoticed. He might have stopped being a douchebag earlier on and Quick might of had to kill him a few days later.

I'm saying we shouldn't kill people - In my time on the game I've seen very few "unearned deaths". But if there were coded alternatives to killing that had in game, coded ramifications - you'd see less killing for sure. I know I'd do it less, I'd incapacitate them, cut out a hand and send them on their way as a warning to others. That has the effect of - avoiding a pc death, giving the character a chance to come back at me (but with a handicap), and providing something for them to RP.  

The cynic in me says, "But then you'd get people bitching about others being too quick to chop off hands."

I agree that more options for maiming would be nice - and more options for anonymity would be even better.

I had a few kills like that. They're there, stripped naked, completely outmatched and I'm like .. "here" take this option, you'll live! No, they choose to force me into killing them. It felt so ... unnatural. I mean fuck ... atleast 'lie' to me and get out alive, but these guys would go ... no. Screw you. Yeah ... I didnt bother with them.

Some of my weird PKills that the victims might've found strange and are a year old now.

As my first Red Fang, I once KOd some halfbreed on the span and dragged it out on the ledge. I did the usual chatter, recruited him to serve me as a spy, watch for merchant/militia traffic, even mentioned a quick note that he actually going to get some 'pay' out of the loot gained from his warnings. The breed was eating it up, agreed to everything. Okey, I'm thinking ... I've gotten myself 'another' ear, things are doing good. And then I decided to screw around and instead of 'releasing' him. I threw her upwards.  ... Yeah, bad idea. On the ledge, near a 3 room fall. He did not exactly fall in the 'same' room I threw him from. So yeah .. that was a wtf PKill. Totally accidental.

At another time. I had a guild character, who befriended and seduced an inexperienced, beginning sex slave in hopes of latching on the stream of information she was bound to bring in for her Master. Unfortunately for her, the character had pretty bad experiences in the rinth during his youth, and a lot of what was going on to the slave 'now' echoed to what was in his background. He tried to strengthen her, tried to teach her. And at one point, after an immense amount of thinks and feels, and anguish ... realized that he couldnt let her go through what he did in his own tender youth. So he uhh ... killed her. I'm sure for her it was an out of whack, wtf, where did that come from kind of kill.


Also killed a whole bunch of other people out of whack, but only cause he was paid to do it.

Quote from: a strange shadow on September 25, 2009, 03:49:09 PM
The cynic in me says, "But then you'd get people bitching about others being too quick to chop off hands."

I agree that more options for maiming would be nice - and more options for anonymity would be even better.

People would probably bitch, but perhaps in a different way. It seems to me like part of the bitching about PKilled is stuff like:

-- I didn't get a chance!
-- You didn't tell me why!
-- You just cut plots off rather than creating plots!

All those would be gone, and what would remain is, "I didn't like it and it sucked for my PC!"

I wish I could see a way to put more anonymity options in without encouraging the abuse of anonymity, but I don't. I wonder if we could come up with truly good ideas for this. I also wonder if the change to make hooded figures uncontactable from a distance improved things?

Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 25, 2009, 03:57:01 PM
I wonder if we could come up with truly good ideas for this. I also wonder if the change to make hooded figures uncontactable from a distance improved things?

My guess is that the Way wasn't being used to get people's descriptions quite as often as they thought.  Every time you contact the wrong person by accident and just "hang up," that person gets a creepeh feeling.

Aren't a lot of Pk's handed down by staff?

There's no other way to shut up, remove competition or deal with repeat offenders.

Even powerful folk can't always get rid of someone or maneuver them enough to stop gossip/rumors.

Once someone knows too much, it's too late and the rumors fly.

If anyone has a problem with the flow of things, they gotta die.

Relationships among the houses can screw up business for everyone.

Just don't get caught - that's the real shame, cause then you gotta die too.

Quoteand more options for anonymity would be even better.

No joke, not being able to remain even slightly anon is the second biggest reason I'll kill rather then other options.


Also, I get a kick out of how often "Random PK" Is thrown around this thread and others. I've never done a random one myself And I've never seen or even heard of one. Oh, I'm sure they do happen, but every one of the hundreds of PC deaths I've been involved with in some manner had a reason.

What I love is the players skilling up on NPCs that get one shotted by a PC they don't even know and wonder why...OH, RANDOM PK!.

HAHAHAHA!

I took all of the Mughal Empire's lands but one and they agreed to become my Protectorate. And then the next turn they waged war on me. Damn those Mughals, I tried not to PK them!

1st, Ghost, those stories were nice to hear, especially for someone who's magicker character of the time was one of those first two that ended up being captured, tortured and killed by your character's people.  I always wanted to know who to send kudos to, for that scene, but I couldn't see anyone to get a s-desc and send it in.

2nd, all the reasons being stated in this thread are valid and wonderful.  Let someone live?  Great!  They came back for revenge, even after agreeing to knock it off/work for you/flee?  Great!  Sounds like Zalanthas, to me.

Having said that, I do feel for those of you who find the repeated "Domingo Montoya" mentality just a tad bit wearying, especially after it seems like every single time you show mercy, it bites you in the ass.  Lesson to learn?  Mercy is for the weak, but let your character learn that.  I wouldn't find it wrong for someone to kill my PC, even when they're begging for their lives and have every intention of following along with what would keep them alive, if the lessons previously learned through repeated gestures of mercy only point out to my killer that letting someone live ends up being a "Bad Thing."

There was a si-fi book I read once..I forget the name, but it talks about a young future "super-soldier" that, when he has his first fight and chance to kill an enemy, ends up letting her go instead.  An hour later, said enemy soldier shows up in tow with a few more soldiers from the opposing force and blows several of the Super-Soldier's friends apart, including his older brother.  From that point on, even though he hates the fact that he does it, he kills each enemy that pleads for mercy as it's already been "proven" to him that letting them live ends up being far too potentially dangerous to him and those he cares about.

I see that this attitude has made it's way into the minds of many of the players and their characters, on Arm.  This is natural and good, IMO.  Also, I see the attitude that being put down without much explanation or reason we can see leads to "bad-rp" and much frustration.  This is natural and good, to me.

We're all wanting to have our story told, but that's the thing.  Our stories are a book, where the only way to see the next page is by keeping our characters alive.  Often, that means killing another character who's story could lead to the end of our own...there by ending someone else's story, creating that frustration I mentioned above.

Do I wish I could maim someone and have them be satisfied with getting away alive.  Yes, I do.  Unfortunately, I, too, have come across those who would rather have the "Domingo Montoya" attitudes far too often for my liking, and I and my characters find it somewhat easier (and safer, for me and that which I value) to eliminate said threat.  I'd gladly maim, if it lead to someone keeping their character.  "Maim", in Arm., though, seems to bring up the thought that they're now at a coded disadvantage, or have to constantly RP as if they were..and that wears on people who would rather be out having fun being that "super-hero" we dream about, instead of Gimpy McAmos who lost a few fingers or a full hand for having tried said lost hand at being a raider, and lost.

Edited to remove a glaring error..though I think I would like to "Mime" someone to death, some day.

Quote from: My 2 sids on September 25, 2009, 01:56:20 PM

Quote from: jhunter on September 25, 2009, 01:36:26 PM
You're applying real world, modern-day logic and morals to a world that is much more primitive and lacks alot of those morals that you're trying to apply to it. I guess what I'm saying is that maybe you should look back on our RL history a bit and see how things were when things were more primitive and people thought differently than they do now.

Read your own history, and some sociology and anthropology books too.

The idea of humans seeking a form of law dates back to Hammurabi!  The individual is NOT ALLOWED to do whatever the hell they want -- they have to conform.   Random, irrational  death is never supported by ANY culture EVER.   And yes, someone dieing because they sneezed on you -- is random and irrational.


I'd go so far as to say if death was so "normal" that Turki society would fall -- can't build fear of unknown difference in the hearts of folks who know for a fact death is around the corner.


What you're labeling as "modern" is really nothing more than a recipe for Anarchy.

"Irrational death" is a matter of perspective. That's the point that you seem to be missing. What one man considers excessive and irrational, another man sees as perfectly fair and justified. Some people in our society believe that death is an excessive punishment even when the crime is murder.

This thread actually made me pretty sad in portions. I'll try to address the one thing I've seen here that is somewhat pointed at staff, and the others as just another player who loves this game.

STAFF PORTION:

Staff can not, will not, nor want to kill players. Honestly guys, we don't sit up there, rubbing our hands together and cackling at the chance to off one of you. We can and do have the world react appropriately to your actions - and yes - that can lead to a death. However, since I've come on staff (approx. 8 months now) I've seen 8 PKs handed out by staff, personally. That's one a month. We have anywhere from 60 to 100 apps reviewed per -week-. At the lowest amount for a month, that's 240:1 ratio. (subject to change based on storages/death by mob/critter) but you get the idea.

PLAYER PORTION/My opinion:

Not trusting players? There's alot wrong with that imo. I trust all of you and I've seen some of you at your "worst". Distrusting characters is definately a way to go, but I have more faith in the players behind them to have a reason for actions no matter how big or small that makes sense IC. Benefit fo the doubt. And if it's for something OOC or a "I need to win" mentality, then so be it, but I'm not going to let that spoil the IG story for me, or other players I interact with that have nothing to do with said event.

Next, avoiding leaders? It's an RPG. Leaders need love too, and they have the most thankless job most days seeing as one person needs to deal with half a city of PC's. That leaves very little time for them to be doing something -they- might want to do with their character, made only worse when they go to try and get interaction only to find a ghost town because people dive for cover.

Now for the actual topic..

PK is a last resort, not a first or only option in 80% of the scenario's that can be given. The alternatives (some of which Niamh outlined) are very doable. Showing trust in other players will have trust be given back to you in turn. Trust they will RP out the maiming, the beating, the lost limb, their reputation being put into shambles - whatever the case may be. The reasoning behind killing someone because they may come back to "get you" is not a reason at all, imo. If you want to keep someone down, or simply keep yourself safe, DO IT. RP. Get the favor of that Templar/Militia - that influencial Noble - that powerful assassin - make alot of friends to keep tabs on your enemies so they can't even scratch their butts without you knowing it. PKing for that reason is laziness. If they STILL manage to "get you" then you had the joy of being part of a beautiful story line (Gangs of New York comes to mind) and you should come away from the experience satisfied.

If people do not roll with the RP, if you think they "twinked", abused the code or "wronged" you in a fashion that was not IC file a player complaint or email your clan staff. I'll bet 9 times out of 10 that player on the other end didn't know what they did was wrong (being new or just never having been there before) and once they've been addressed on the issue they LEARN and the playerbase as a whole benefits from it.

Quote from: Pale Horse on September 25, 2009, 05:35:31 PM
Do I wish I could mime someone and have them be satisfied with getting away alive.  Yes, I do.  Unfortunately, I, too, have come across those who would rather have the "Domingo Montoya" attitudes far too often for my liking, and I and my characters find it somewhat easier (and safer, for me and that which I value) to eliminate said threat.  I'd gladly mime, if it lead to someone keeping their character.  Mime, in Arm., though, seems to bring up the thought that they're now at a coded disadvantage...

I think you mean "maim."

However, if I'm wrong and you really do mean "mime"...then by all means, carry on, and I hope to catch your one-man, white-face, silent-gesture, act-of-death in game soon! :)

QuoteDo I wish I could mime someone and have them be satisfied with getting away alive.  Yes, I do.  Unfortunately, I, too, have come across those who would rather have the "Domingo Montoya" attitudes far too often for my liking, and I and my characters find it somewhat easier (and safer, for me and that which I value) to eliminate said threat.  I'd gladly mime, if it lead to someone keeping their character.  Mime, in Arm., though, seems to bring up the thought that they're now at a coded disadvantage, or have to constantly RP as if they were..and that wears on people who would rather be out having fun being that "super-hero" we dream about, instead of Gimpy McAmos who lost a few fingers or a full hand for having tried said lost hand at being a raider, and lost.

lol Gimf beat me to it.

http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,15102.0.html (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,15102.0.html)

It just occurred to me that this is another non-pk avenue that is cut off as well.

You already have the ability to pursue that type of plotline, with the consent of the intended victim. And that's a completely unnecessary derail, which does not benefit this thread in the least. Putting free-for-all rape into the game would not be beneficial, period. End of story.

In the stance that a pc could be (fadetoblack) raped rather than killed is a completely relevant detail. I still stand by the point that they shouldn't have the choice whether or not something negative happens to your character. Only whether it is fully rp'ed out or fade to black. End of story.

Raping a PC rather than killing them will somehow stop them from coming back for revenge, which is the primary reason listed on this thread as why players choose to PK? Or it will somehow be easier to do than killing, which is another huge reason? No, and no.

All that putting rape into the game would do is alienate and drive away players (mostly female) who have suffered sexual abuse in real life, and other players (both female and male) who find forcing RPed rape and its consequences on other players to be reprehensible.

Show me it's good for the game, jhunter, and then you maybe have a case. But you can't show me that; all you can do is continue to repeat, "But I want it in."

You're misunderstanding my point. The point is that it is another avenue of action that can be taken against other character, like torture, robbery, maiming, etc, -instead- of death. That is my only point to it. Nothing else, I never stated that it would prevent retailiation. It is another avenue of action that can be taken against other pcs without killing them that doesn't require staff approval or assistance. (if it wasn't up to the player whether they can avoid it happening to their character or not) I mean, I guess if you want to have your pc killed rather than raped, I guess that's your choice. I was just pointing it out since it was a staffer that brought up the entire thread anyway. It's sending a message of: Try not to kill people, do this or this, but not this, maybe this, this is okay, but you can never do that...

Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 25, 2009, 05:41:15 PM

Quote from: Pale Horse on September 25, 2009, 05:35:31 PM
Do I wish I could mime someone and have them be satisfied with getting away alive.  Yes, I do.  Unfortunately, I, too, have come across those who would rather have the "Domingo Montoya" attitudes far too often for my liking, and I and my characters find it somewhat easier (and safer, for me and that which I value) to eliminate said threat.  I'd gladly mime, if it lead to someone keeping their character.  Mime, in Arm., though, seems to bring up the thought that they're now at a coded disadvantage...

I think you mean "maim."

However, if I'm wrong and you really do mean "mime"...then by all means, carry on, and I hope to catch your one-man, white-face, silent-gesture, act-of-death in game soon! :)

Uh..yes...yes, I did mean "maim" ...and I don't know why I put "mime"

...oops

jhunter, there's exactly one action, within a whole range of potential actions, that is explicitly prevented by policy unless the victim's consent is given. This seems like an extremely unproductive direction for conversation.

Quote from: Shabago on September 25, 2009, 05:39:52 PM
This thread actually made me pretty sad in portions. I'll try to address the one thing I've seen here that is somewhat pointed at staff, and the others as just another player who loves this game.

PLAYER PORTION/My opinion:
Get the favor of that Templar/Militia - that influencial Noble - that powerful assassin - make alot of friends to keep tabs on your enemies so they can't even scratch their butts without you knowing it.

Except that few actually want bribes. Templars don't really want bribes, they just take your coins and kill you. The Noble turns you over to the templar who kills you, and the assassin just kills you. I've never bribed anyone that actually was any benefit to me.

Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 25, 2009, 06:24:10 PM
jhunter, there's exactly one action, within a whole range of potential actions, that is explicitly prevented by policy unless the victim's consent is given. This seems like an extremely unproductive direction for conversation.

All I'm saying is that (however minor it may be) it -is- a potentially contributing factor that may steer people more toward PK. The fewer options you have besides killing them, the more likely it is that you will kill them. Can we at least agree upon that? I'm not saying whether or not the rule is correct. I'm just saying that it is a sort of contradiction to "Look for other things to do to characters besides killing them."

Quote from: jhunter on September 25, 2009, 06:16:16 PM
You're misunderstanding my point. The point is that it is another avenue of action that can be taken against other character, like torture, robbery, maiming, etc, -instead- of death. That is my only point to it. Nothing else, I never stated that it would prevent retailiation. It is another avenue of action that can be taken against other pcs without killing them that doesn't require staff approval or assistance. (if it wasn't up to the player whether they can avoid it happening to their character or not) I mean, I guess if you want to have your pc killed rather than raped, I guess that's your choice. I was just pointing it out since it was a staffer that brought up the entire thread anyway. It's sending a message of: Try not to kill people, do this or this, but not this, maybe this, this is okay, but you can never do that...

I get your point I think. Basically its OOC considerations influencing IC stuff. Our OOC culture making certain things IC unavailable. I agree with you, but I don't think going to happen bro. People will force you to kill them rather than rape them which is sort of what we are talking about... Just let that sleeping gortok lie. Start playing the game again by the way :P

Man, jhunter, if I had the data to do a full analysis for you of the various factors which potentially influence PKilling and to what degree, so I could precisely calculate the proportion of PKills which are actually related to the single factor of rape not being a possibility--then maybe, potentially, eventually, I could agree with you. But all you have is your speculation. Myself, I have never seen a rape attempted to be carried out in game, and I have never seen a PKilling that seemed like "if only rape was an option, I wouldn't have to do this!"

BTW, advocating for rape to be in game? Does nothing for my trust in the men who push for it. It actually makes my skin crawl, and pushes me more toward avoiding y'all's PCs and/or killing first.

Quote from: KankWhisperer on September 25, 2009, 06:24:38 PM
I've never bribed anyone that actually was any benefit to me.

Wow. Really?  I've never bribed anyone and not had it work more or less as intended.  I can't remember ever being killed by a templar or a noble, except when I was explicitly asking for it.

Did you even read my posts? Stop reacting emotionally and please read and respond accordingly. I don't believe I said in my posts that it should be any different. I only said that it is one particular avenue that is closed off. That's it. Again, I will state yet another time for you...so as to try and be even more transparent:


I NEVER STATED THAT THE RULE WAS WRONG OR SHOULD BE CHANGED. I SAID THAT IT IS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR -HOWEVER MINOR- IT MAY BE.

So please, stop trying to turn it into a personal issue against me. K, thanks.  :)

Quote from: number13 on September 25, 2009, 06:37:10 PM

Quote from: KankWhisperer on September 25, 2009, 06:24:38 PM
I've never bribed anyone that actually was any benefit to me.

Wow. Really?  I've never bribed anyone and not had it work more or less as intended.  I can't remember ever being killed by a templar or a noble, except when I was explicitly asking for it.

I guess I don't know how to do it right.

QuoteExcept that few actually want bribes. Templars don't really want bribes, they just take your coins and kill you. The Noble turns you over to the templar who kills you, and the assassin just kills you. I've never bribed anyone that actually was any benefit to me.

On that point, I've found bribing to be very effective.

It is also effective on my PCs. Beg, bribe, two best ways to avoid death...at least with my PCs (unless I'm playing an assassin already being paid to kill you...then it is all just business...sorry.)

QuoteNext, avoiding leaders? It's an RPG. Leaders need love too, and they have the most thankless job most days seeing as one person needs to deal with half a city of PC's. That leaves very little time for them to be doing something -they- might want to do with their character, made only worse when they go to try and get interaction only to find a ghost town because people dive for cover.

Then let us get rid of apped leaders.

No, I am not kidding. I don't think officers should be apped in any clan. I do not think sorcs should be apped, or benders, home grown or not at all.

Templars should come from PC noble ranks only.

A noble has some power, sure, but not much code wise outside own estate/compound.

I've seen many past and present nobles that lasted long enough if they got elevated to the rank of templar I'd feel good about interacting with them from the start.

I've never liked a single apped officer and actually fragged quite a few.

It's not a personal issue against you. It's a visceral reaction that I have, and that others have, when men bring up the subject of rape on these forums. You want to be trusted, men (in general)? Then stop talking about rape and how you wish you more often had the option to play it.

Bringing up rape in this thread, which was intended by the OP as a conversation about potential alternatives to PKilling, is quite bizarre if you are not actually advocating for rape to be always an option. Why bring it up if you're not actually suggesting that it should be always an option? Your self-defense seems disingenuous.

Quote from: jhunter on September 25, 2009, 06:37:59 PM
I NEVER STATED THAT THE RULE WAS WRONG OR SHOULD BE CHANGED. I SAID THAT IT IS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR -HOWEVER MINOR- IT MAY BE.

Also, please show the data that supports your unequivocal statement here. In fact, you do not have it. All you have is your own speculation. What if the data actually showed that rape in game increased violent actions in general and thus led to more PKillings? That is another entirely feasible outcome, as rape IRL is a violent crime and linked to other violent crimes. However, it's not reasonable to speculate at all in the face of an utter lack of data.

Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 25, 2009, 06:47:00 PM
It's not a personal issue against you. It's a visceral reaction that I have, and that others have, when men bring up the subject of rape on these forums. You want to be trusted, men (in general)? Then stop talking about rape and how you wish you more often had the option to play it.

Bringing up rape in this thread, which was intended by the OP as a conversation about potential alternatives to PKilling, is quite bizarre if you are not actually advocating for rape to be always an option. Why bring it up if you're not actually suggesting that it should be always an option? Your self-defense seems disingenuous.

I brought it up because the other thread reminded me of the rule and since this discussion is about alternatives to PK'ing other pcs. It seemed to be relevant to the discussion So, by your standards, anyone who writes a book, movie, play, etc that has an act of rape in it, is some sort of deviant? Everyone who writes a book, movie, play, kills a character in an fictional world is some sort of bloodthirsty deviant? By your reasoning, everyone who plays this game is a twisted and sick fuck. It's not my fault personally that you have the perspective you do. I've never raped anyone nor do I condone, real life rape. I don't however agree that anyone who depicts such acts in a fictional way (whether that be a book, movie, play or roleplaying game) is somehow some kind of rapist sicko. I don't have to earn your trust. I could care less if you trust me or not. I don't have anything to prove to you to settle your own issues and insecurities on the issue. The problem is your own. Not mine, so please do me a favor and stop taking it out on me.

Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 25, 2009, 06:49:32 PM

Quote from: jhunter on September 25, 2009, 06:37:59 PM
I NEVER STATED THAT THE RULE WAS WRONG OR SHOULD BE CHANGED. I SAID THAT IT IS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR -HOWEVER MINOR- IT MAY BE.

Also, please show the data that supports your unequivocal statement here. In fact, you do not have it. All you have is your own speculation. What if the data actually showed that rape in game increased violent actions in general and thus led to more PKillings? That is another entirely feasible outcome, as rape IRL is a violent crime and linked to other violent crimes. However, it's not reasonable to speculate at all in the face of an utter lack of data.

And, by your own reasoning, you cannot refute it without data to support it. It's not reasonable to speculate at all in the face of an utter lack of data.

Guys ... can we stop talking about rape? I mean, as amusing as it would be to see the staff lock a thread that the staff started ... this is a pretty dead horse.

I would have dropped it already had Gimf stopped her attacks upon me over it.

QuoteThen let us get rid of apped leaders.

No, I am not kidding. I don't think officers should be apped in any clan. I do not think sorcs should be apped, or benders, home grown or not at all.

Templars should come from PC noble ranks only.

I know it won't happen, but I'd prefer things done this way as well.

QuoteI've seen many past and present nobles that lasted long enough if they got elevated to the rank of templar I'd feel good about interacting with them from the start.

That would be a great reward for long-lived nobles, and would provide incentive for people to keep their noble PC alive and active.  (Though I've encountered only two templars that I believed were undeserving of the role.)

jhunter, uh, thanks for repeating what I just said? I was countering your assertion that "it is a contributing factor." As I clearly pointed out, whether or not it is a contributing factor cannot be determined.

Also, you go off the deep end about how everyone thinks you're a deviant sicko whenever you bring up the topic of rape. It's really weird. That language doesn't come into it at all until you bring it in.

Quote from: Gimfalisette on September 25, 2009, 06:47:00 PM
It's not a personal issue against you. It's a visceral reaction that I have, and that others have, when men bring up the subject of rape on these forums. You want to be trusted, men (in general)? Then stop talking about rape and how you wish you more often had the option to play it.

Bringing up rape in this thread, which was intended by the OP as a conversation about potential alternatives to PKilling, is quite bizarre if you are not actually advocating for rape to be always an option. Why bring it up if you're not actually suggesting that it should be always an option? Your self-defense seems disingenuous.

QuoteBTW, advocating for rape to be in game? Does nothing for my trust in the men who push for it. It actually makes my skin crawl, and pushes me more toward avoiding y'all's PCs and/or killing first.

That is not a personal reaction. I do not know anything about you, jhunter, the person, nor am I assuming anything about you. I am telling you that when I see you and other men advocating for rape on the forums that I want to avoid you, regardless of whether you are actually a perfectly nice person or not. There is a fight-or-flight response that comes into play; you evoke it, even though rationally I may believe you are not, personally, a rapist.

Just because I advocate PK, doesn't mean I PK. I think the last PK that I did that wasn't forced on me at a RPT was like five years ago. I have never
murdered anyone in real life. So someone taking up a position on an argument doesn't say anything about them imo. Lots of people like to take up
the Devil's Advocate position, or to point out an inconsistency without actually disagreeing with the rule.

You know who kill excessively? Terrorists. Are you a terrorist?

Put simply, IF YOU MURDER IN ARMAGEDDON BIN LADEN WINS.

Quote from: Jdr on September 25, 2009, 08:12:38 PM
You know who kill excessively? Terrorists. Are you a terrorist?

Put simply, IF YOU MURDER IN ARMAGEDDON BIN LADEN WINS.

This made me laugh.  I <3 you sometimes, JDR.

Quote from: musashi on September 25, 2009, 06:58:17 PM
Guys ... can we stop talking about rape?

The naughty Red Fang sneaks west.

Does anyone else feel like this thread has been three pages of an IRC chat?

I agree with what X-D said, that leader positions maybe don't NEED to be app'd... but in that case, we'd have to have 3-4 Nobles per house considering the PC death rate, before any city would see a Templar.


Maybe there should be better guidelines when initially app'ing a Templar to explain or give examples "how things are done in [city]"?

I don't think people realize --- The newbs, the commoners --- That they have 0 chance of survival before they walk around stabbing people.

They already have to kiss ass, grovel and beg to survive. Their only hope is to make connections with other mundanes and hope to the gods of Zalanthas that no one sees them as a threat.

It's hard as a new player to know who's a threat and who's a friend.

It takes a few long lived (10+ days) characters, to care enough -- to want to live over being some bad-ass, for  scenarios to count, to realize what people are fighting for, to protect your fellows - To learn.

Having survived, new players are at your mercy and it's practically your responsibility to teach them how to survive. Those pc's of similar background, race, whatever -- Because the greater story happens when you're around for awhile and plots need a team/group to have enough credibility to participate (unless you're a really nice ranger).

Especially when staff sends out hits.

Quote from: musashi on September 25, 2009, 06:58:17 PM
Guys ... can we stop talking about rape? I mean, as amusing as it would be to see the staff lock a thread that the staff started ... this is a pretty dead horse.

You may now be amused.