This has been rattling around for a while, and I've digested it enough that I would like to share my thoughts. None of this is criticism or intended to incite 'flames' or conflict. It's a request for people to consider, to reflect upon, hopefully before they enter into an in character confrontation in the future, near or otherwise.

One of the biggest metagame offenses is knowing there is no permadeath. We fearlessly throw our characters into combat because the absolute worst possible (mechanical) penalty is twenty four hours of incarceration. In reality, your character dies, waits for five minutes, is brought back and starts plotting vengeance with whatever ally brought you back. There is no disincentive to throw down.

I categorize this as metagaming because our characters have no such certainty. While recognizing this is not PnP, we can use that game as a baseline, and in that game returning from death is no middling feat. Unless it's true resurrection it always costs you a level, and there are ways to prevent the person from being able to be brought back. Heading into battle, there is no guarantee you'll come back, from the fight or from death. A captured body could be tossed into the sea, never to be found. Even in a world with resurrection magic, death looms.

The alternative is DM enforced permadeath, which sucks, and I am not advocating for it. More than a few DM's I've played with over the years simply do not allow players to die without the player being okay with it, and I get the logic. It's a game, it's meant to be fun, and it takes a lot of fun out of it if your character gets squashed because you rolled a one. So, DM enforced permadeath isn't on the table and that's fine with me.

Anything enforced, really, is kind of a bummer, but as I write this I think back to Yossarin's Cordor Serious Mode post and there's wisdom there. People do take advantage of - metagaming by doing so - the lack of permadeath or death penalties from character's fighting each other, and that also makes for some unfun and, frankly, in character absurd situations.

So my plea is: take your finger off the trigger. Before you decide to jump into the middle of something, before you start buffing because someone insulted your character or summoned the wrong thing or whatever, stop and ask yourself: is my character willing to risk permadeath for this? If you hesitate, so should your character. Have your character act as if all the risks of final death are there, even if you the player know they're not, because - and this is important - your character doesn't know that.

_________________
You dare mock the Tibbly one, catcherer of drowses?

A fair call, and a viewpoint I hold to myself. But mind you, my character has had three people (and counting, it looks like) extremely close to him Killed Off For Real, and he hasn't really been around all that long. If anything it's made him more reckless... but that's just my main, my other PCs vary on the ruthlessness/recklessness scale. Point is, permadeath does happen, optional or no, and sometimes the trigger itch is justified.

Mind you, not every combat is life or death - in almost every fight where I get the choice, I try take them alive. There's no real penalty for doing so.

_________________
@Thanatopsis#6293

Agreed.

In cases where a PC may be more inclined to be 'trigger happy', it still comes down to that sensibility, that honesty in answering the question: 'How would my character react?'.

If you've got a reckless character, then your character knows and doesn't care that they're throwing themselves about roughly and may well meet an early end. If you've a more grounded character, the opposite is true.

Don't do something because you can. Do it because your character would.

_________________
Stiker Blackneck - Human Ranger
Cendir Naerathilhonan - Wood Elf Warden

_________________
Just lurking about!

A really good way to upgrade the flavor in this regard, is to more appropriately use non-lethal fighting. I absolutely understand that some characters probably would straight up kill a man for insulting them. But for others, using non-lethal blows can actually help build Rp in the future.

Think about it like this: For every time you kill a person, and they come back from death (Because lets face it, most PvP scenarios aren't worthy of permadeath storytelling), there's a part of you that goes, "Oh, there's no consequences to this person's actions. I can do anything to them, and they'll hop right back."

I've found in my experiences that a really neat alternative to this is deciding to use non-lethal force. So you win the PvP, and rather than killing the opponent, you leave them incredibly bruised and battered, humiliated and spared only by your mercy! That right there, feels like a better conclusion to the event, because you know in the back of your mind that there's a way this person can live to see another day without the blanket "Maaaagic" effect. Typically, in my experience, the victim PC is more willing to play the injuries too if they've been left on the brink of survival. Another huge upside is that you can actually RP with the downed person, and they can RP in return.

Now, I should say that it goes both ways. The victim, if severely beaten (Ie: defeated in PvP, but Rply left just barely alive, and barely conscious) should probably not just drink a heal potion and jump into the fray like nothing happened. It kind of spits in the face of the people that were trying to help generate RP, and keep a cleaner, more accurate conflict environment. I've found that this generally isn't a huge problem, because the victim PC is comfortable at least with their character still being alive.

And in most cases, using non-lethal damage is simply more appropriate ICly. I admittedly cringe every time I see a simple troublemaker killed at swordpoint as punishment for breaking the law and running. I once had a character that tried to equip the Kohlingen Knights with clubs for exactly that reason-- because a sword is a very lethal weapon! And there are some actions that really just don't warrant death, especially when it comes to enforcing a law. (Some characters, yes, will overreact-- and that's IC for them, I get that. But most just kill out of ill-practiced reactions!). Likewise, when a person is insulted and guts the person. Its even more upsetting to me when the people around him (Sometimes lawful folks) side with the killer, saying things like, "At least he shut up!" when the attacker just committed murder!

Sometimes, non-lethal damage just doesn't fit the situation. But I challenge you as players to try it when it could. Its a very easy, very effective way to help stave off this OOC feeling of pointless PvP, and pointless death. It's kind of simple, and kind of profound-- If you're tired of seeing people come back from death every day-- don't kill them! It requires a bit of cooperation between players, but its often much easier than you'd think. (As often as you're upset about how easily people come back from death, imagine how often the victim is upset that you decided to kill them instead of beat them senseless when it might have been appropriate!)

In the real world, lawmen get tried for murder or manslaughter if they kill someone in the line of duty, unless they absolutely had no other choice, whether the killed person is a native to the country or area in question, or not. Things like this should be especially considered in Amian settlements that fall under the good and neutral alignment umbrellas. Good thread and good responses. I've already thought about all this before, but I'll make an extra effort to see this kind of thinking see the light of day in game. I'm definitely of the same mind with Hackums here, mindless killing is quite literally a tool to kill RP, instead of generating it. Not to even mention how immersion breaking and obnoxious it is when someone you've literally killed seven times a row keeps coming back for more.

_________________
Sion of Nimlith
Shadow Disciple

as a drow warrior who used to participate in raids, i rarely, if ever, actually killed my opponents in combat.

rationalization? I wanted people to know the might of the drow, and how will people know the might of lolth if everyone who witnessed it was dead? you need survivors to spread the news that you are there and mean business.

I also acted with the knowledge that good would pretty much always win in the end

_________________
Slander [Zanthair Akarupa of the Horsemen of the Apcalypse] - Sorcerer 'Mediocreare'
Isendu't'tar Ussen'd'Vhid d'My'ana'd'Xull'd'Vharcan - possibly the longest name in Amia
Tiffany Seagrass - weak and fragile weaver of words

This is very much a school of thought on why I like playing Tuomas as using his spells Nonlethally in general ((And actually did the RP to make a request for such magics to be availible) .. I agree if the consistant point of view wasn't so much continous slaughter as just battering and taking down..

Not always easy to do really , cause not all modes of combat allow so easily for nonlethal engagement but still.. a point to think about.

Oh....I used to equip Yaston with trouts for the same reason!!!

Honestly with Yaston I preferred to subdue the opponent...the new devcrit was actually a good thing for such because you did not really have to kill the opponent, because a deaf/blind/knockdowned figure can be captured or also can be considered humiliated.

However, I cannot always see this thing in the case of smiter paladins or blackguards. Kinda hard to make a great smite non-lethal.

Well, that's not what I meant by non-lethal. You can still take someone down to -10 health, and RP it as a non-lethal, but fight-ending blow.

Yeah, but in the case of the smiters, the ending blow is generally a great smite. And in the case of a great smite there is little to no chance that we are talking about a standard hit, but a supernova which strikes the opponent. How can you make that a non-lethal hit...even if it comes from a club?

Well, the fluff is up to you. Nothing about the ability description says it's a "supernova". Given that it scales with Charisma, it's more likely a very impressive strike showing off the strength of your conviction.

This is what a Smite Evil looks like, to me:


For a more Realms-appropriate comparison, take Word of Faith/Holy Word. Granted, it's not the same effect, but I imagine it's a similar kind of burst that sends you reeling (especially appropriate if we interpret HP loss not as literal cuts but as getting weary from poorly avoided attacks, as Uberuce used to argue) more than some flame of love that sears flesh. Not that the latter isn't possible, too, but by no means a necessary interpretation.

_________________

I like to use that HP interpretation often, Iron. I pitched it to the players in my tabletop game and they're generally fond of it, especially the players of non-fightery types. It is just fluff, so for the most part you can interpret it the way you want. The only place it starts to not make much sense is when you question poison on weapons and whether it actually needs to break the skin to be effective, in which case you say, yes, it does, and when you are hit with a poisoned weapon and dealt damage and have to make the save, then yes, you were actually stabbed/cut/bitten/whatever.

As far as non-lethal, hell, I often roleplay that my PC doesn't even kill the spawns, just incapacitates them, using the flat of a blade or the hilt.

Depends on the situation, really.

Would my druid and faithful servant of Mielikki risk permadeath to do her divine duty and kill what harms the balance (which very well may be a summon)?

Yes, anytime.

Would my wizard risk permadeath just because someone who means nothing to her has a bigh mouth and insults her?

No, definately not.

_________________

If you're using the mechanic of Subdual Mode to explain that you're not dealing lethal damage with your +5 keen flaming weapon of doom, I think that's a bit disingenuous. If someone insults your significant other in a bar, and you feel the need to fight them, you don't pull a gun. If you do pull a gun, everyone in the room knows you've just changed the equation. I'm 100% for non-lethal damage, but only if the characters are actually acting like they're not trying to kill someone. Otherwise, I think it's another metagaming side-step, just like the fact that we know nothing will ever happen to our characters.

Which brings me back to my original point: I'm hoping people will find ways to resort to character versus character fighting less. I would argue that it is not the in character killing that kills RP, as Sphinx and Hack said, but the use of CvC that kills RP. Again, I am not arguing for consequences, but if there were real, OOC penalties for the death of a character, I think people would be forced to re-evaluate how quickly their characters would draw their swords. That would force them into uncomfortable situations - being stuck between their religious duties or convictions and a vile ally, or perhaps being forced to swallow their pride, or whatever - that make for compelling role play scenarios. As it stands, people will role play right up until they resort to game mechanics, and then they will stop role playing and go into CvC mode.

So, trying to bring it back to the OP, I'm hoping people will resort to CvC combat less, and only when their character would ICly risk permanent death. If we follow that rule I think it will have a real effect.

_________________
You dare mock the Tibbly one, catcherer of drowses?

My diplomacy skill is my initiative modifier.

_________________

Gerald Edmund
Discord: Metal Viking Guy #5433

DC taxation is theft!

Ah, my advice given wasn't the complete answer, it was just a portion. It was something people could try and see a simple change from without altering the server paradigm!

But it was never intended as the whole solution. Just something folks could try.

I'd like to +1 this!

We're dealing with people routinely decked out in protective gear equivalent of ballistic vests and powered exoskeletons, who routinely engage in deadly combat for a living. The P&P subdual rules are actually extremely stupid (so are the HP rules, but y'know) and, oddly, make it really easy to subdue someone - in practice, you deal subdual damage once, and hope you don't deal exactly that amount of damage +10 on the final blow of the combat. If we want to play it quasi-realistically, we really should be able to do subdual damage whenever we want for a small penalty to attack/damage, and any self-respecting melee combatant, especially one who's gained the upper hand in the combat, should be able to manage (rogues/monks can strike precisely, heavy hitters just hit hard in a non-vital spot, no one cares about dex rangers). Add to this that absolutely everyone has magically thickened skin, harm-deflective garments, supernatural evasive instincts and a magical force field around them, I get the sense that actually killing someone is very deliberate in the majority of circumstances (others being: sudden crits, holding someone at knifepoint, those could conceivably lead to accidental kills). Therefore, I feel that the gun analogy is an inexact parallel.

It's just not practical to attempt overtly nonlethal combat because of how the system handles unarmed fighting when you're not a monk. Even if you could convince the server at large to engage in fisticuffs more readily than swordplay, there's no good way to handle a proper brawl - the system expects you to hit them until they fall over, not throw a few punches and let the environment properly interact with the fight (people stepping in, your opponent stumbling back and going defensive/backing off, others joining in to restrain). Deliberate disengagement is too messy. You can do this with dice rolls but for a lot of people this is awkward, especially since it's unenforceable without DMs present.

So you can call it a metagaming sidestep but I think it's a necessary bit of metagaming to avoid other problems.

I think you're arguing something in addition to your original point, now; simply that you find PvP distasteful. Well, that's fair, and I don't totally disagree with you, but I feel they're two separate matters. If PvP is managed so that it will not necessarily lead to death, it's not a question of frivolous waste of life and recklessness, only questionably-acceptable levels of aggression in given situations. There are certainly problematic PvP encounters but not all aggression is so, and I think determining whether it's appropriate or not is far too subjective. I don't think I could get into the complexities of police brutality vs a paladin's duty, just to name a single issue. So, either you like it or you get it, or you don't, and many people simply don't for completely personal and understandable reasons. Maybe one simply find PvP stressful (I do at times), I dunno. The best thing to do, IMO, is to try and be respectful of your fellow players, and to play your character in a way that you feel is accurate. That's not to say I feel that your position is invalid - I can certainly see where you're coming from. I think it might just be that the way I play and the people I tend to gravitate towards tend to take things in a way where this isn't a problem for us.

_________________
@Thanatopsis#6293

My issue is not that I find PC's fighting each other distasteful. My issue is, as I said, that we do it here with such frequency because we know there are no real consequences. This out of game knowledge lets us be trigger happy without ever having to pay for it, and thus my line about not doing it unless your character would risk permadeath. If your character would actually risk that much, they yeah, go for it. If not, if a real person wouldn't do it, then your character shouldn't either, because that's what role playing is.

One of my favorite Cracked articles talks about how the Wild West wasn't that violent. Why? Because actually drawing down on someone meant you might die for real, and even though the guns of the era weren't super accurate, dead is dead.

_________________
You dare mock the Tibbly one, catcherer of drowses?