Joined: 17 Dec 2013 Location: Just arrived from Korriban by Fury class Imperial Interceptor
So, when an PC attacks your faction members in your faction area or your city, town, home, area. How do you protect against it next time? Do you just have to wait until the attack happens and react?
I'm asking the goodly side their thoughts. Should the goodly factions/PC's always be put into a position of having to react because we can't be proactive by keeping the trouble makers out of our areas?
BTW, I'm looking for decent ideas on how to do this as a result of the 'Bans' topic. Since I am a proponent of bans if it turns out we can't use them effectively then what else can be done to protect our faction areas and cities/towns?
And the biggest question of all... /should/ we overtly protect our faction areas and cities/towns? Or just allow trouble makers in to facilitate RP?
For instance, should there be an agreement from the troublemaker PC's that killing is off the table? Any PVP is just for knocking out so its not a revolving door of death.
_________________
2015 Mr. AMIA with the Fabulous Estara ~ 2015 Best Developed SOB Character: Rith'tar
We confront them. Have had fights in Endirs and around that area many times. You can be pro-active and go get them where they are first, but that doesn't do much with resurrection being so common, barring some extreme exceptions. Unfortunately protecting something static generally means reacting from your defended position is the only realistic option; it's why most faction areas have locked doors and other defenses. "Leave or I'll make you leave ((pvp warning))" is totally legitimate as a deterrent to intrusion. Often the fact you are willing to fight to keep someone out makes them leave w/o even a fight, 9/10 times that's the case.
But as I've found out, communication is really the most effective. Just telling someone to stop fucking around, calling them out for their current activities and telling them to stop, makes them stop. That seems to be true across the entire alignment spectrum of characters/players on Amia, but have 'da squad' there when you do it.
example case; All of Winya telling Pitt to stop spying on Stormwind for them by marching 20 odd PC's into the Dale where he was and telling him all at once.
Joined: 17 Dec 2013 Location: Just arrived from Korriban by Fury class Imperial Interceptor
Er... problem. I seem to recall one of your characters being asked to leave a faction area. NPC guards were called upon to help and your character argued... so...
Got any other ideas?
_________________
2015 Mr. AMIA with the Fabulous Estara ~ 2015 Best Developed SOB Character: Rith'tar
Last edited by MazeOfThorns on Mon, Jan 09 2017, 17:38 PM, edited 1 time in total.
Er... problem. I seem to recall one of your characters being asked to leave a faction area. NPC guards were called upon to helm and your character argued... so...
Got any other ideas?
Throw down, if people ignore you?
I mean what do cops do when they try and put someone under arrest and they blow them off
edit; telling someone to take off and have them NOT take off and then cause a fight will only make their case look worse when you get to punish them for it. Likewise do it yourself, and don't just say an NPC is doing something to another player if a DM isn't on and possessing one. There's no way to verify who follows whose orders.
Joined: 12 Nov 2015 Location: The belly of the beast
I want you to consider, that even though people have evil characters, they aren't really evil. That being said, we have an extremely low server density with the majority of which is "goodly". As a result most of the substantial dm support and resources go towards this. There is much more infrastructure in place and "Evil" characters have very, very few options. Tarkuul is just a bit too evil for many and 98% geared towards the Arcane. Good has the rest of the map, really as player iniative leans towards that. I don't disagree with bans. I think that the use of them is too liberal and the severity to high. The problem with banning players is that you (from an administrative standpoint. ..even though I don't here) eliminate most of the conflict on Amia and it becomes a "tea party". This has happened before and some of the older players can attest that a conflict starved Amia is a boring one. I can empathize that allowing a known villain to walk freely until he does something silly, seems counter intuitive to your characters ambitions, but consider that the villain isn't then allowed to play to his strengths and cut you down unawares in the middle of nowhere. PvP rules take the teeth out of villainy. What happens then if these bans are allowed is that you create a safe, conflict free zone, to which the DM's are then forced to provide you with all external stimulus and evil folks do evil things without being able to interract with good characters and then must wait for the DM's to come and pander to them. The conflict within the borders of these towns should provide entertainment, and if it provide genuine frustration, we are taking things too seriously. The conflict is healthy. I agree to this as a person who plays good, evil and neutral characters. By no means do I think lawbreaking shoukd be tolerated within city limits..but once you end a fellows life...that kind of settles that infraction. Repeat offenders should receive more severe bans and the "perma" ban thing can be enforced, after the player has been given IC warning that his actions are going to result in this. How about we start up a "court" thread in each of the factions and allow a DM judge to mete out punishment, to include loss of gold or levels for those who break the law. Lets at least consider allowing evil characters a chance to interact with the other 5/8 of the server.
_________________ Jace Fenneril: Cleric of Sharess.
Joined: 17 Dec 2013 Location: Just arrived from Korriban by Fury class Imperial Interceptor
Trying to avoid the whole revolving door of death here. PVP isn't an option for all my characters.
What I'm pointing out is that players should /not/ be looking for PVP in those kinds of cases. When the PC of the area and NPC guards are involved there should be no argument. The PC should go with the - being escorted out.
Otherwise it's just more "I'm a power build, make me." Or my favorite BS "It's what my character would do." Which is a BS way of saying, I'm coming back in 20 mins so I can do whatever I want.
We need less of that. Since all that does is make it so I don't want to RP with that PC /because/ I know that it'll be an argument, PVP every... single... time.
Solution: A general gentleman's rule that when your PC is asked to leave. Your PC leaves. Which promotes more RP opportunities. Why? Because the PC can be trusted to be willing to engage in conversation. As opposed to PVP.
_________________
2015 Mr. AMIA with the Fabulous Estara ~ 2015 Best Developed SOB Character: Rith'tar
Joined: 12 Nov 2015 Location: The belly of the beast
MazeOfThorns wrote:
Hey good point thunderbrush, Where's the evil city? I mean Cordor West is bad. Is that enough? There's Zanshibon as well btw.
I now declare myself the Captain of the Guard of Zanshibon. From this day forth anyone alligned with the treaty of light, or known to attack any of my friends shall not be permitted to enter. No more Abyss, No more Store. Does that make more sense? Certainly not. Thats why people are up in arms. It makes things exclusive and makes being evil boring and without incentive. I agreed there should be punishment, but I don't think destroying the cornerstone of good/evil rp is the way to do it.
*edit* That cornerstone being good/evil interraction.
_________________ Jace Fenneril: Cleric of Sharess.
Joined: 17 Dec 2013 Location: Just arrived from Korriban by Fury class Imperial Interceptor
thunderbrush wrote:
I now declare myself the Captain of the Guard of Zanshibon. From this day forth anyone aligned with the treaty of light, or known to attack any of my friends shall not be permitted to enter. No more Abyss, No more Store. Does that make more sense? Certainly not. Thats why people are up in arms. It makes things exclusive and makes being evil boring and without incentive. I agreed there should be punishment, but I don't think destroying the cornerstone of good/evil rp is the way to do it.
*edit* That cornerstone being good/evil interaction.
Except that the goodly people that go through there don't go to spy on Zanshibon or to harrass them or pick fights. They go there to get to the hunting areas and store. I'm betting that if that wasn't the case the goodly folks wouldn't go there.
There are neutral areas such as the Salandran Temple. Maybe we need more of those? Where goodly and badly can interact with PVP taken off the table? That way the badlies don't feel so put upon? And the goodlies don't have to feel like it's all about that revolving door of death?
_________________
2015 Mr. AMIA with the Fabulous Estara ~ 2015 Best Developed SOB Character: Rith'tar
Joined: 12 Nov 2015 Location: The belly of the beast
Let me clarify my position without causing further offense. (Also "goodly" people shouldn't step foot in Zanshibon, if not for greed) By suggesting there are "goodly" players, you have identified the demograph of the server you feel matters and have chosen to exclude the others. There are only players, not good and evil ones and everyone's opinion matters. This is not a sandbox for a few select people and this goes back to the same point that Jess, Sammy, Amarice, Myself and many others have made, which is have consideration for others. I don't have anything else to offer here, but if we are drawing a line in the sand and putting everyone in a labeled box, then the end is near.
*I genuinely feel bad about arguing this, I do think some things need to be set in stone, but bans eliminate player interaction and Bendir will once again be the soul place of interest on Amia. It has happened before*
_________________ Jace Fenneril: Cleric of Sharess.
Trying to avoid the whole revolving door of death here. PVP isn't an option for all my characters.
What I'm pointing out is that players should /not/ be looking for PVP in those kinds of cases. When the PC of the area and NPC guards are involved there should be no argument. The PC should go with the - being escorted out.
Otherwise it's just more "I'm a power build, make me." Or my favorite BS "It's what my character would do." Which is a BS way of saying, I'm coming back in 20 mins so I can do whatever I want.
We need less of that. Since all that does is make it so I don't want to RP with that PC /because/ I know that it'll be an argument, PVP every... single... time.
Solution: A general gentleman's rule that when your PC is asked to leave. Your PC leaves. Which promotes more RP opportunities. Why? Because the PC can be trusted to be willing to engage in conversation. As opposed to PVP.
Well I don't really want to go into detail about this specific incident in the Temple unless you want me to, so if you want me to talk about that incident specifically I'll need your approval to bring up (non plot non spoiler) details.
Also I think the "revolving door of death" is really overstated. When people start doing that, in my experience, the dm team has without fail gotten involved every single time and resolved it ic.
Let's not rehash this into a Bans 2.0 thread. Now on with the show.
You can't be evil and not have the consequences of being evil. Sometimes those consequences are having your home invaded and razed and the earth being salted.
If you have agents of a foreign government coming in and causing destruction to other lands with the full knowledge of their own nation you've just declared war and you should expect it. If those same agents of the government or private citizens/residents are coming in and doing the same without their government's knowledge it is expected that they would become persona non grata with their own government as well as the one they attacked and can expect both to come after them; should their own government not treat them as a rogue asset it would be seen as implied consent for their actions and thus it leads to war.
A lot of what's being missed in all this is that a lot of places that are being attacked or spied upon by other players are in alliance with others. Of course these communities share information as well as resources and find it to their benefit to cooperate with the others to ensure their own survival. They generally can and will commit resources to a fight to ensure that their allies will one day return the favor. At the same time if your area is out there poking the bear without the full backing of your allies they will turn around and sell you down the river claiming they had no idea what you were up to as they don't want to get drawn into a war. It is for this reason that NATO and Warsaw Pact forces never met in open war on the territory of the other and only fought proxy wars in other countries; the BRD or the DDR could have invaded the other's territory but it would have drawn in the big guys in the US and USSR and ultimately neither of those (outside of a few warmongers on either side) wanted that to happen so instead you dealt with conflicts in otherwise neutral territory like Korea or Vietnam.
Since you can come back from death any time you like unless you decide not to the only way to punish others is to take what's theirs and destroy it. You gather up an army and march it right the heck through their home and treat it in such a way William Tecumseh Sherman would achieve permanent turgidity and the best part is you can do this as a good guy because you're hitting them hard in order to defend your people and prevent unnecessary future bloodshed.
So yeah, if you want to pick a fight or spy or anything else you go right on ahead but don't pull a shocked face when it turns around and bites you on the ass. D&D is a game of heroes. Rarely is a hero ever a bad person going against worse people (think the Parker novels by Don Westlake) and is never the bad person going against good people. If you want to be a terrible scumbag of a character that's fine but be accepting of ALL of the consequences of doing so.
Let's not rehash this into a Bans 2.0 thread. Now on with the show.
You can't be evil and not have the consequences of being evil. Sometimes those consequences are having your home invaded and razed and the earth being salted.
If you have agents of a foreign government coming in and causing destruction to other lands with the full knowledge of their own nation you've just declared war and you should expect it. If those same agents of the government or private citizens/residents are coming in and doing the same without their government's knowledge it is expected that they would become persona non grata with their own government as well as the one they attacked and can expect both to come after them; should their own government not treat them as a rogue asset it would be seen as implied consent for their actions and thus it leads to war.
A lot of what's being missed in all this is that a lot of places that are being attacked or spied upon by other players are in alliance with others. Of course these communities share information as well as resources and find it to their benefit to cooperate with the others to ensure their own survival. They generally can and will commit resources to a fight to ensure that their allies will one day return the favor. At the same time if your area is out there poking the bear without the full backing of your allies they will turn around and sell you down the river claiming they had no idea what you were up to as they don't want to get drawn into a war. It is for this reason that NATO and Warsaw Pact forces never met in open war on the territory of the other and only fought proxy wars in other countries; the BRD or the DDR could have invaded the other's territory but it would have drawn in the big guys in the US and USSR and ultimately neither of those (outside of a few warmongers on either side) wanted that to happen so instead you dealt with conflicts in otherwise neutral territory like Korea or Vietnam.
Since you can come back from death any time you like unless you decide not to the only way to punish others is to take what's theirs and destroy it. You gather up an army and march it right the heck through their home and treat it in such a way William Tecumseh Sherman would achieve permanent turgidity and the best part is you can do this as a good guy because you're hitting them hard in order to defend your people and prevent unnecessary future bloodshed.
So yeah, if you want to pick a fight or spy or anything else you go right on ahead but don't pull a shocked face when it turns around and bites you on the ass. D&D is a game of heroes. Rarely is a hero ever a bad person going against worse people (think the Parker novels by Don Westlake) and is never the bad person going against good people. If you want to be a terrible scumbag of a character that's fine but be accepting of ALL of the consequences of doing so.
There's a lot of stuff there. I'd reply to more of it but I'm at work atm. Give me about five hours.
For instance, should there be an agreement from the troublemaker PC's that killing is off the table? Any PVP is just for knocking out so its not a revolving door of death.
I have a lot to say on both sides of the fence, but I want to address this point solely because I feel like I have something to add.
Killing should never be off the table, especially for PCs that are in the settlement to do such. Note my neutrality here. I feel there is some bias against evil players doing this because they are few, but it is more OOCly acceptable for good players to instigate stuff in more evil-led territories. Now, while I think that assaults, some deadly, are /good/ for conflict, they really need to be dealt with in a way that enriches RP, not causes OOC tensions which will deteriorate RP. Because of OOC sanctions, you are not able to kill another PC and promptly dispose of their body, never letting them become revived ever again, without DM approval. However, Amia is ICly a very high-magic island (and by extension sister islands/lands frequented by their residents have become so, too) it would be no surprise if you killed a person one day, they'd be back the next.
So how do we use this conflict to enrich RP? Well, it's two simple things: The Quality Of Conflict and Willingness For Consequences.
The former, is more so the reasoning for the conflict in the first place. "Oi Orc! You smell!" "Dats it, you dead now." This sentence alone is ambiguous but most of you reading that will think "That's not a good reason for conflict." We, the viewer, lack subtext, which is the main reason a lot of these conflicts reek of OOC aftertaste. Whether the conflict is between just two people or we have people onlooking, we NEED subtext in some way shape or form, and it's up to the players to decide it. It's putting that extra bit of RP flavour in to act as an OOC indication that conflict may ensue from this. An example from the original statement:
*The Elf sniffs the nearby Orc. A clear distaste runs from his voice as he points to the beast.* "Oi Orc! You smell!" *The Orc shifts his weight towards the elf-man, grunting at him aggressively.* (This offers an IC out, before conflict is spurred.)
*The Elf spits near the Orc in a mocking fashion.*
"Dats it, you dead now."
This gives the flavour of RP that makes the conflict happen. It seems a lot of conflict is spurred without much grand meaning, and sometimes it doesn't NEED to be! But with our current playerbase, I feel like the only way we can introduce conflict in the first place is to put meaning to it. This means you, as the player, need to write a way for the other player to assess what you're trying to convey. We're not all wordsmiths, but there are definite ways to ICly warn someone OOCly that this may escalate to something more.
The second point, is more so to do with what happens AFTER conflict.
The Elf and the Orc clash, one remains victorious. It doesn't matter which, but this is where a large portion of PvP conflicts cause mudslinging matches. If you're the winner, it's up to you as the player to delegate the punishments accordingly, but you must do so with OOC grace. A similar thing goes for the loser, it's up to you to accept that you are no longer in control of the situation. As long as the victor does not do anything that violates any rules (cybering, gore, imprisonment without DM oversight) you must remain noble to the fact that, unfortunately, it's not your character's victory, but someone else's.
I'm going to put it in bold now, If that this point you feel like the PvP was against certain rules (such as conflict in a city where guards would be sure to witness, as one example) you MUST screenshot everything you can. Report this to a DM and act accordingly OOC and IC at the time of it.
Fundamentally, PvP needs to be dealt with in a manner where all parties involved does so without OOC malevolence. If rules are broken, instead of airing dirty laundry on the forums, put it forward for the DM team to assess.
Now, don't get me started on actually defending settlements/faction areas, but this is all I'll contribute for now.
_________________
"Operating in the border between light and darkness, shadowdancers are nimble artists of deception. They are mysterious and unknown, never completely trusted but always inducing wonder when met"
So, when an PC attacks your faction members in your faction area or your city, town, home, area. How do you protect against it next time? Do you just have to wait until the attack happens and react?
I'm asking the goodly side their thoughts. Should the goodly factions/PC's always be put into a position of having to react because we can't be proactive by keeping the trouble makers out of our areas?
BTW, I'm looking for decent ideas on how to do this as a result of the 'Bans' topic. Since I am a proponent of bans if it turns out we can't use them effectively then what else can be done to protect our faction areas and cities/towns?
And the biggest question of all... /should/ we overtly protect our faction areas and cities/towns? Or just allow trouble makers in to facilitate RP?
For instance, should there be an agreement from the troublemaker PC's that killing is off the table? Any PVP is just for knocking out so its not a revolving door of death.
Well not the goodly side, but also not the badly side.... More of the Cory side.
Like all IRL crimes you cant always prevent them before hand all that you can really do is punish them after the fact and the punishment has to be to such a point that they wont want to be punished again.
What I did for people who were a real big problem was enforced the 24 hour rule.
Quote:
16. If your character is captured, and the character who caught him/her wishes to keep your character locked away, they can do so for a period of 24 RL hours, without your OOC consent. However, roleplay with the captive must be provided for those 24 hours. If it is not, then you cannot force the captive character to remain "locked away", unless you come to an OOC agreement on the matter. Keeping a character captive for longer than 24 RL hours requires the OOC consent of the player of the captive PC. In certain instances a DM can enforce captivity, but this is rarely done.
But see I did not take that as you get to log off said person for 1 day IRL and then be free.... no I demanded 24 RL hours online active in game time not all at once mind you, but in once case the player did not get released on said character for three weeks because they did not want to log on and do the RP of them being in the cell or being chained up and forced to break rocks as I would take them to a job system node like the granite on coast road map, fishing chair.... I would try and do what ever job they had to so they could pay back their debt and it work out better for the island and if the player cooperated sometimes they really only had to spend like 5 hours RPing out a punishment.
But I stopped doing it because players just did not want to play along they would claim they broke free and then would run away, even if IC they were chained and could not run have to leave the island past guards at all exit points and would have no items so sure.... be free I would have your millions of gold, epic gear...ect and your a person in jail rags running up to a guard, you would die in 10 seconds. I got sick of OOC dealing with it so sadly I started to see the reason why perma bans really were less stress on my part if they entered the area after being ban you send in a screenshot to a DM and just say metagaming guards and its not your problem anymore and the risk of getting a ban from the server was more punishment then we could ever hope to issue IC against a single PC to prevent them from wanting to cause problems.
My best advice to you is pick a punishment for the character based off the player, if you know you can make a OOC agreement with them to not be stupid and PVP nut and find a way to get enjoyable RP out of it for the both of you do that.... otherwise punish them in such a way that it make them what nothing to do with you next time and if they caused problems again they would be forced to deal with you so in turn they wont cause problems.
_________________ ================-<Cory ShadowFlame>-================ Risenlord-Shifter(OMG a Non-Dragon Shifter that can hold his own in PvE)
Last edited by corypx on Tue, Jan 10 2017, 0:46 AM, edited 1 time in total.
I think it's extremely telling that in the wake of a potential DM discussion (not even a ruling, a discussion), there is a topic immediately made for "the good guys" to talk about "how to keep the others guys" (sic) out of "their areas".
That says a lot to me. It should say a lot to a lot of people, and it is, in my opinion, not saying a lot of very nice things.
Quote:
What I'm pointing out is that players should /not/ be looking for PVP in those kinds of cases. When the PC of the area and NPC guards are involved there should be no argument. The PC should go with the - being escorted out.
The character should do what the character would do. You don't get to determine that. PVP and RP are not mutually exclusive, and that they are being treated as such is a sym,ptom of the general server culture's com,plete allergy to conflict that needs to end, and is part of why bans even need to be discussed by the DMs again to begin with.
Quote:
Let me clarify my position without causing further offense. (Also "goodly" people shouldn't step foot in Zanshibon, if not for greed) By suggesting there are "goodly" players, you have identified the demograph of the server you feel matters and have chosen to exclude the others. There are only players, not good and evil ones and everyone's opinion matters. This is not a sandbox for a few select people and this goes back to the same point that Jess, Sammy, Amarice, Myself and many others have made, which is have consideration for others. I don't have anything else to offer here, but if we are drawing a line in the sand and putting everyone in a labeled box, then the end is near.
Bingo.
Quote:
Maybe we need more of those? Where goodly and badly can interact with PVP taken off the table?
On the complete contrary, we need more areas where PCs are able to personally resolve problems without the screen of the DM. no matter how that resolution may come about. Some of the best conflict RP happened on the server when it was entirely within the hands of the players to be managed and handled - completely out of the purview of "you're metagamiong the guards" and "you need a DM to be here". Conflicts that spanned dozens and dozens of players across timezones and RL months.
_________________ Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
Would have commented but I think Cory and Tormak said anything i'd want to say.
Also Maze didn't give permission yet so I'm not going to comment on the specific incident they brought up.
edit; do I actually need permission to defend myself here?
MazeOfThorns wrote:
Er... problem. I seem to recall one of your characters being asked to leave a faction area. NPC guards were called upon to help and your character argued... so...
I now declare myself the Captain of the Guard of Zanshibon. From this day forth anyone aligned with the treaty of light, or known to attack any of my friends shall not be permitted to enter. No more Abyss, No more Store. Does that make more sense? Certainly not. Thats why people are up in arms. It makes things exclusive and makes being evil boring and without incentive. I agreed there should be punishment, but I don't think destroying the cornerstone of good/evil rp is the way to do it.
*edit* That cornerstone being good/evil interaction.
Except that the goodly people that go through there don't go to spy on Zanshibon or to harrass them or pick fights. They go there to get to the hunting areas and store. I'm betting that if that wasn't the case the goodly folks wouldn't go there.
There are neutral areas such as the Salandran Temple. Maybe we need more of those? Where goodly and badly can interact with PVP taken off the table? That way the badlies don't feel so put upon? And the goodlies don't have to feel like it's all about that revolving door of death?
Hey good point thunderbrush, Where's the evil city? I mean Cordor West is bad. Is that enough? There's Zanshibon as well btw.
When I was a dev I started a project on a NE settlement area that also had some interesting ideas for quests and some good fluff.
It didn't take off and didn't get much traction though I believe Ama liked the idea.
The specifics of the theme made it a place where good guys would very clearly feel un welcomed and realize they were out of their element but nothing like Paush's city.
The idea I had would have allowed illicit trades and slavery such and other wondrous forms of rp to flourish.
The initial idea was to make it so a party needed a contact to get there.
I still think this would be a good interesting idea to compliment and offer a new flavor of local / venue to allow rp to flourish specifically geared towards healthy conflict.
_________________
❤ Amia is Fun Again! ❤ #GreenisNotACreativeColour "It's easy to feel like a hero. It's a little harder to be one."
It didn't get traction because the idea was not well thought out and didn't account for a great number of things Amia's setting needs to account for, along with being an unasked for project that you kept sinking time into when other things needed to be done.
_________________ Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
Joined: 22 Sep 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia [GMT +10]
I don't like the idea of making new towns and bases as a method to engineer more RP. In the long run, it just feels like it is segregating the server further and those settlements will just fall by the wayside as time passes. The focus should be more on the settlements we have now.
I think its also about what settlement you choose to attach yourselves too. If its somewhere 'stable' like Kohlingen or Wiltun, then you are trading off autonomy for extra security. If you pick a place where things are more up in the air, like Nec'perya/Thraan'dariv, you get more autonomy but its more on you about protecting yourself. Forgotten Realms is meant to be a dangerous place after all, adventurers are the PCs who handle the danger. So I think you need to get used to the idea your PC's face could/will get stomped if they are in a position where they are the one who has to handle security threats to themselves. And accordingly seek out ways to strengthen their hand.
That said, I miss the frontier towns. Wharftown, Bendir Dale, Guldorand and Ceyren's Mill all used to be a looser when it comes security. But now they are all fortified and armed to the teeth, its like an arms race. I can see why it happened though, frontier towns are usually easy and tempting targets for evil PCs to wreck. (granted, Bendir Dale's defences just got taken down a notch) But an unfortunate side effect is that as they became more militarised, they have become more like Wiltun and Kohlingen.
Joined: 29 Jul 2007 Location: Norway: Home of the Trolls
MazeOfThorns wrote:
thunderbrush wrote:
I now declare myself the Captain of the Guard of Zanshibon. From this day forth anyone aligned with the treaty of light, or known to attack any of my friends shall not be permitted to enter. No more Abyss, No more Store. Does that make more sense? Certainly not. Thats why people are up in arms. It makes things exclusive and makes being evil boring and without incentive. I agreed there should be punishment, but I don't think destroying the cornerstone of good/evil rp is the way to do it.
*edit* That cornerstone being good/evil interaction.
Except that the goodly people that go through there don't go to spy on Zanshibon or to harrass them or pick fights. They go there to get to the hunting areas and store. I'm betting that if that wasn't the case the goodly folks wouldn't go there.
There are neutral areas such as the Salandran Temple. Maybe we need more of those? Where goodly and badly can interact with PVP taken off the table? That way the badlies don't feel so put upon? And the goodlies don't have to feel like it's all about that revolving door of death?
The only problem with evil people throwing good ones out on their asses from Zanshibon or Tarkuul is that the leaders of said cities might take issue with it, in fact in Tarkuul that might get YOU thrown out in violation of the second law and hindering the first unless they was going there to stir some shit up.
I get that being evil is extremely difficult, especially as it limits where you can go in certain cases. BUT I would argue that so does your choice of race, deity and profession and I think how you act in a certain place should reflect how you're treated there. Goodly people start shit in Zanshibon or Tarkuul or whatever? Go medieval on 'em. Want to try to stir stuff up by getting them banned? Start laying the foundations so you can get the power to do so, because that's what the good and neutral characters have been doing and that's probably why it's being adressed in another topic.
I don't think more neutral locations are the sollution here, because we have several already and they tend to be deserted (save Bendir, which is in fact neutral and historically doesn't ban you unless you start shit there), Kampo's, Bendir, Endir's Point, Triumvir and Cordor to name just a few. If a change is required here to alter the dynamic (And I have a feeling plenty of people feel like this, due to the number of related topics that have popped up over the last 2-3 weeks), then it has to happen on the PLAYER level, not the server. Amia is what it is because of the players and the direction they've been taking it and the RP. If that is to change then what the players want and do needs to change, the rules, areas and mentality will follow in time. If more people play evil chars than good ones & do a ton of RP, then I can guarantee that there will eventually be changes to reflect that in whatever areas get affected.
_________________ Adair - Druid and part time treant cosplayer
Joined: 12 Nov 2015 Location: The belly of the beast
The thing is. I agree with some of what Maze is saying. I respect that he has some genuine frustration over certain situations and understand his desire for a resolution. I used the Zanshibon thing as an example of how stupid things could get. What I disliked was the "Goodly" players thing.. A vast majority of my characters are good, or neutral with an inclination towards good. What I'm trying to say is that even if you ban someone chances are he or she can find a way to your gates to come piss you off. Antagonists antagonize. We can't expect these people to suddenly have respect for the law and cow to what you say. It is against the character. If you find yourself in the position of having to deal with said person, chances are you made a concious effort to get there and assume the responsibilities and risks associated with the job. I'm not even going to touch on holding such responsibilities over multiple factions, with multiple characters. Let's just not. Part of being a good guy, if having to deal with bad guys. It's the dynamic that makes this game interesting. Not everyone desires to have love interests or any of that. Some people LOVE pvp. I happen to be one of them, but generally abstain because the rules pander to a handful of builds. I'm getting off topic...
Maze. I agree with you. Let's not exclude the rest of the server from establishing rules that effect everyone. Im kind of fucked up about it being OOC... Before this thing went up in flames (through some part of my own) You started comming up with constructive ideas. Lets keep that ball rolling. DM's we need a little input as well. If someone defies the authorities of an establishment, and commits crimes in front of the guards, or refuses to leave (especially if banned), can we not have a mandatory, jail sentence that increases with each infraction (like a no shit week), coupled with heavy fines and level decreases to reflect incarceration time? If a character uses weapons to commit a crime, could not those weapons be confiscated for a time as well? I know these sound severe, but I believe it is on the right path to creating consequences for misconduct.
_________________ Jace Fenneril: Cleric of Sharess.
@Op - I don't think you should be forced to PvP or have conflict RP, necessarily all the time. I understand that at a certain point it gets repetitive and boring. But at the same time, it shouldn't be completely disallowed simply because you'd rather live in a disney movie with only friendly players and the evil being 'witty'. This onus in my opinion is on those evil people "losing" or being "banned" from attacking or causing a problem if it doesn't go well for X amount of time, or something IMO. They should focus on making those conflict encounters rich with RP, and progress some other plot with their actions. Not just mindlessly attack because they're bored. I realize that does happen, but I'd like to think we can raise the echelon of the RP the playerbase participates in as time goes on. You can either have a great time, and have conflict, or you can win at a 16 year old video game with 'bleh' mechanics. You can have it both ways guys, change has to come from within, and unfortunately, it means you just gotta give people a chance. Banning people from 75% of the map is silly, any way you look at it. IC or OOC. Mostly because "OOC metagaming" is a concept that applies differently to amia than anywhere else, because the NPC's aren't really 'attackable' and are really rarely able to be possessed. This, for many, creates a deadlock in RP. Food for thought.
Maze. I agree with you. Let's not exclude the rest of the server from establishing rules that effect everyone. Im kind of fucked up about it being OOC... Before this thing went up in flames (through some part of my own) You started comming up with constructive ideas. Lets keep that ball rolling. DM's we need a little input as well. If someone defies the authorities of an establishment, and commits crimes in front of the guards, or refuses to leave (especially if banned), can we not have a mandatory, jail sentence that increases with each infraction (like a no shit week), coupled with heavy fines and level decreases to reflect incarceration time? If a character uses weapons to commit a crime, could not those weapons be confiscated for a time as well? I know these sound severe, but I believe it is on the right path to creating consequences for misconduct.
None of this is what's happening though. That's why I have to keep saying "no crimes" until I'm blue in the face. There are -no crimes- taking place and bans being levied in lieu of actual consequences because unlike ic consequences, bans are between a player/PC and a DM, not a PC and a PC.
Maze brought up this example;
MazeOfThorns wrote:
Er... problem. I seem to recall one of your characters being asked to leave a faction area. NPC guards were called upon to help and your character argued... so...
Got any other ideas?
and then went on to say;
MazeOfThorns wrote:
When the PC of the area and NPC guards are involved there should be no argument. The PC should go with the - being escorted out.
MazeOfThorns wrote:
Solution: A general gentleman's rule that when your PC is asked to leave. Your PC leaves. Which promotes more RP opportunities. Why? Because the PC can be trusted to be willing to engage in conversation. As opposed to PVP.
Let's break down what actually happened. Seeing as it was specifically brought up by and then referenced by Maze I feel it's relevant to the discussion to illustrate what actually happened as the event is being used to further one side of this discussion. If you bring up a thing I was at or misrepresent it OOC, I'm going to correct the record.
I removed everyone but Maze and myself from this image (and as far as I can tell this is the entirety of our IC communication).
Summary;
1. I arrived in an area alongside many other people.
2. Drusus told me to leave the entire public temple "Because a holy brother said so." (Unless I'm mistaken the temple is public and only the locked rooms/locked areas are private, but that's irrelevant here)
3. He then emoted the guards taking me outside, and slammed the door. There is no way to IC respond to this without being accused of metagaming NPC's, which I have no way to know as a player or a PC if they actually do what he says.
4. See purple text for what happened next.
When he says bans or "being asked to leave" promote RP opportunities, it's a total falsehood.
There are no DM's on. Do the NPC's actually listen to that PC? Does my character know that? Do I know that as a player? Do they just obey every single command issues no matter what? No DM's on. NPC's do nothing IG. Do I have to respect every emote he says an NPC is doing? Door slammed. Can't talk. OOC text again telling me NPC's are doing things. Do they roll grapple to grab me? Or a touch attack? Door closed. I'm banned. Purple text, "get out, you arn't here." How are they escorting me out? By force? Asking me to leave? Do I get an opportunity to defend myself against people grabbing me? If they aren't grabbing me, why am I leaving? I can't fight back, there's no DM's on, so what do I do?
I have to leave simply because there are no DM's on, even though there's no reason I would have just turned and left. It's an IC situation being made entirely OOC.
There is no "RP opportunity" there, it was quite simply, "get out, I said so, slam door, you're not here." Can PC's just order NPC's to interact with other players when DM's arn't on? Who can order who? Is this even a rule? Doesn't matter, I had to go or I'd be accused of metagaming NPC's, but as far as I know unless a DM is on to do it you can't give those kinds of orders (grab, restrain, and remove that PC) to an NPC unless there's a DM possessing one for the reasons stated above.
The example above in Khem is not RP. It's pretty much as close to the opposite of RP as you can get because it literally prevents you from reacting in character to something you don't even know is happening or not and cannot verify.
Calling back to the first post; This is why you need to handle stuff IC and IG yourself, as a PC, IC.
Quote:
So, when an PC attacks your faction members in your faction area or your city, town, home, area. How do you protect against it next time?
Ask them to leave. actually communicate. Threaten consequences you're willing to carry out. Make sure they leave by watching them leave IC. Roll grapple to grab them if they don't. If they refuse to be grabbed or resist treat it like a cop would someone resisting arrest. Flag a DM to get them there if you feel its needed; last time I hit the 'summon dm' rest button it took about 45 seconds to get 2 dm's logged into the server and at my position.
Then ensure both parties deal with the consequences IC.
I came from a server where death was a pain in the butt. Said pain could range from moderate to flaming chainsaw cactus depending on who raised you, your alignments, your deities, and how you were raised. Unless you went a very expensive route (200,000 GP and that was a king's ransom over there) you were given a moderate to severe XP debt any time you were raised. Unless it was their server that went out and they had one of the two DMs there to raise you with no penalty you were boned. Your internet went out? F you, pay me. Game locked up? F you, pay me. The rest of your party vanished into thin air? F you, pay me. That server was also not like Amia in the respect that you couldn't level anywhere near as fast, either, so you REALLY wanted to avoid dying.
There were rules in place to protect the weaker members of society. You couldn't PVP someone five levels or more below you unless they made the first attack; if you killed them with that big a level difference they were restored to life and you died. There were similar level restrictions on pickpocketing. You couldn't kill someone in the cities or towns where there was a guard presence as it was understood that someone was always watching. This served a purpose to prevent any general jackassery as the evil were made to be evil in secret (as they should) and allowed that being well-liked by others meant that your death was both easier to bear and was more likely to be avenged. All told this forced a rather polite and respectful society because if you didn't watch out someone was going to kick your ass.
Now on to where we are today:
I am, for the most part, happy that we don't have such a penalty on Amia. I have been in a situation where new players didn't read (or chose to disregard) the rules about PVP and they went on a murder spree before it was settled. I have had people pull completely silly tactics and run the monsters at the poor unbuffed wizard. I have been in combat and had multiple players in party drop because an internet backbone took a crap. None of this should penalize another player that dies as a consequence but that isn't what we're discussing here, anyway.
As it stands now the wages of sin is "meh." Get caught pickpocketing someone or robbing their house? Just pay it back with a small penalty so you can come back and do it again and again. Get caught committing espionage for another group? Pitch a fit until they let you back in. You can launch a hellball into the middle of a town and get your ass kicked but like some sort of perverse Frosty the Snowman you'll be back again someday.
Some people seem to be under the mistaken impression that their actions should be free of consequence for themselves. Some are better than others in regard to handling their consequences. Big ups to Libris Mortis with HoJo in this respect as the player understands that his character is foul and deserves what he gets and doesn't make a big stink about getting notified in triplicate that he is unwelcome in certain areas because he knows damned well what he did makes him persona non grata and therefore only carries out actions in those places under eye of the DMs.
This all goes back to the earlier point I made that the only way you can really hurt someone is to take what's theirs and break it. If a cop sees someone standing around with a rifle threatening to shoot people they don't wait for the perp to fire first before taking him out. If a lady takes out an ad to have her husband bumped off they don't wait for him to die before they put her under arrest. If you see nations that don't like you massing armies on your borderand making threats you don't wait for them to march in before you mobilize and take them out. Since we can't threaten to kill a character without it having as much impact on them as a cloudy day we need a way to hurt them and hurt them in a way that it will make them think twice before acting. One needs to be able to not only state their intent to act but also must be unshackled to actually do so. You can't threaten to spank someone that has a cast iron butt or gets off on the act. You can't send a child to his room if you let him have all his toys there. Good does not mean lenient and evil doesn't mean free from consequence.
Remember your Gen. James Mattis: “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.” “I’m going to plead with you, do not cross us. Because if you do, the survivors will write about what we do here for 10,000 years.” “Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact.” “Fight with a happy heart and strong spirit.”
Remember your Gen. James Mattis: “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.” “I’m going to plead with you, do not cross us. Because if you do, the survivors will write about what we do here for 10,000 years.” “Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact.” “Fight with a happy heart and strong spirit.”
Also remember what else he said, what might be the most telling quote about the man.
Quote:
Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
One of the rules Maj. Gen. James Mattis gave his Marines to live by in Iraq, as quoted in Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq (2006) by Thomas E. Ricks; as excerpted in Armed Forces Journal (August 2006)
Someone fucks with you, kill him. That what you're saying with your post?
The point is that actions have consequences and those consequences aren't yours to choose. If you're an ass or you act in an untrustworthy manner you should expect to not be allowed to play with polite society. You might be asked to leave a town and not come back. Should you choose to do so or not leave the first time it wasn't out of the question that you might be ridden out of town on a rail or tarred and feathered. If they did come back they were usually treated in such a way that, were they able to on account of not being dead, they would be loath to repeat entry a third time.
Since we can't have one player dictate to another that their character is permanently dead or maimed we use what mechanisms we can to ensure that our chosen societies are filled with the people we would prefer to see. This means that sometimes you just have to go in and raze their city/town/outpost/crab shack to the ground. Rather than have you dust yourself off after a death and chalk it up to an unpleasant experience you should be made to feel a true consequence. It took you six months to build up Neato Base #1? Well since you pissed everyone off and you didn't learn your lesson about how to act in society you find an army rending Neato Base #1 asunder. There goes all your work. Now rather than irritating the same people you can spend another six months to build it back up if anyone's willing to work with you.
Since we can't have one player dictate to another that their character is permanently dead or maimed we use what mechanisms we can to ensure that our chosen societies are filled with the people we would prefer to see.
Not sure what needs clarification about this. I can't perma your character. I can't say that I've permanently blinded your character by ripping out his eyeballs or permanently crippled him by cutting off his hands. I can't even keep a mass murderer in jail for more than a day without his permission. This means that a settlement is limited in what tools it has to enforce its laws. In some cases this may be a fine. In some cases this may be a blanket ban on particular races. In some cases this means that on a case-by-case basis you may be excluded from entry. Should those prove ineffective the destruction of your home or the home of those that harbor you is not out of the question as that can be done without the permission of the players that own it.
Remember, this isn't 21st century America. There is no such thing as due process. You have no right to a jury trial. You have no right of appeal. You have no right to file for a redress of greivances against the government, especially when you aren't a citizen. You can obey and generally be left alone or disobey (or be thought to disobey) and suffer the consequences thereof. It's the word of the people in that society versus the word of someone that's an outsider. If the townsfolk say you're a witch you must be.
Not sure what needs clarification about this. I can't perma your character. I can't say that I've permanently blinded your character by ripping out his eyeballs or permanently crippled him by cutting off his hands. I can't even keep a mass murderer in jail for more than a day without his permission. This means that a settlement is limited in what tools it has to enforce its laws. In some cases this may be a fine. In some cases this may be a blanket ban on particular races. In some cases this means that on a case-by-case basis you may be excluded from entry. Should those prove ineffective the destruction of your home or the home of those that harbor you is not out of the question as that can be done without the permission of the players that own it.
Remember, this isn't 21st century America. There is no such thing as due process. You have no right to a jury trial. You have no right of appeal. You have no right to file for a redress of greivances against the government, especially when you aren't a citizen. You can obey and generally be left alone or disobey (or be thought to disobey) and suffer the consequences thereof. It's the word of the people in that society versus the word of someone that's an outsider. If the townsfolk say you're a witch you must be.
You actually can keep people in jail for a long time, a lot longer then a day. 24 hours means 24 hours, not "see you irl tomorrow when im out." If someone is doing that to you, ie causing trouble on tuesday then popping back in wednesday saying they are out and doing the same shit again, poke a dm.
If one of MY people is doing it, tell me ooc. Because we don't play that way or tolerate people who do the 'next day/same day same shit' bullshit being associated with us ic or ooc because it's scummy as fuck.
And what's 24 hours real life and forced roleplay in game in jail for, say, stampeding cattle through the Vatican? Remember, they can't make you stay there and then not roleplay with you and they can't not roleplay with you to get you to stay there longer.
Can I assume that you agree with the rest of the statement as you've made no comment in regard to same?
About what? Consequences? I'm all for consequences. I've defended my stuff before and had permadeath threatened on me three times I think and that character is still around.
That's what I like to see. If someone fucks up, put them in jail. Then make them be in jail or put them to work.
corypx wrote:
But see I did not take that as you get to log off said person for 1 day IRL and then be free.... no I demanded 24 RL hours online active in game time not all at once mind you, but in once case the player did not get released on said character for three weeks because they did not want to log on and do the RP of them being in the cell or being chained up and forced to break rocks as I would take them to a job system node like the granite on coast road map, fishing chair.... I would try and do what ever job they had to so they could pay back their debt and it work out better for the island and if the player cooperated sometimes they really only had to spend like 5 hours RPing out a punishment.
I would 100% go along with this. This sort of thing is like 1000x better to me then throwing someones name on a vague 'ban list,' because it allows PC to PC rp.
If I could make a change to Amia it would be for stuff like this to be the norm. I think we're all mature enough here that if you got nabbed for -actual crime- then you can go to jail and deal with it IC, again with DM approval if needed.
ucfgoose wrote:
And what's 24 hours real life and forced roleplay in game in jail for, say, stampeding cattle through the Vatican? Remember, they can't make you stay there and then not roleplay with you and they can't not roleplay with you to get you to stay there longer.
I sure as hell would. I imagine if you wrangled a DM they would enforce it as well, assuming the 'jailer' has actual RP/activity going on for the guy 'jailed' that isn't just "sit there and don't talk."
The point I was trying to make is that the maximum jail sentence for arson and murder is the same as the maximum penalty for spitting on the sidewalk. "So I burned down the orphanage and I go to jail for 24 hours RL roleplay time? Alas and alack! Whatever shall I do?"
And again, I'm not going to argue bans here other than to say they are one tool that players have to keep out undesirable elements. You don't get to pick your punishment. If you don't want to run the risks of being punished with anything up to and including X, Y, and Z don't give anyone a reason to punish you. But that's not even the point of the thread to begin with and it's been derailed long enough.
YES! Without reservation, if someone is a threat you take out the threat immediately and in such a way that they won't even think about being a threat ever again. If someone makes a fist and says they are going to punch you in the eye you don't need to wait for them to take the first swing before you drop them. And yes, you should protect your faction areas the same as you would protect your domicile or, if you're playing a guard, expect your police or military to protect their municipality or country. To do less doesn't make a lick of sense and if you want to interact there's nothing that says that you can't do it in a place where neither of you isn't welcome.
Joined: 17 Dec 2013 Location: Just arrived from Korriban by Fury class Imperial Interceptor
@ Commie, Seriously, that's bad sportsmanship right there. You want to get pissy with me OOCly then get a DM to moderate.
Your problem here is that you wouldn't listen to the facts that you missed in that situation. All you cared about was making me... Maze... look bad. OOCly. Right here in this forum.
You didn't know everything about the Cathedral. You didn't know everything about the situation at hand ICly so you went OOC about it.
Please stop derailing this because there are some really good comments and suggestions.
------------- Whoever pointed out that it shouldn't be goodly and badly, good point. I like things in nice tidy buckets. It's more about how to keep at least one little area from becoming a battleground.
I understand if a group wants to infiltrate say... the Cathedral in Khem to spring their guy. BUT It shouldn't be that every person that comes in gets to act like an ass then gets to refuse to be escorted out.
And sorry Tormak, not even the most sociopathic, sociopath will refuse to be escorted out of a place every single time. This 'that's how my PC would act' is still BS imho. A PC refuses to comply by arguing then what, my PC has to kill their ass to get them to comply? That's BS. Oh and btw, Commies character wasn't banned, not at all, he was removed along with others for a specific reason. There was no reason for Commie to take it OOCly at the time but he did.
My reply to Commie was to point out the problem of PC's ignoring requests, wanting to argue and /still/ arguing when the NPC guards are called. His suggestion was communication but as he demonstrated, communication doesn't work in situations where there is a PC ignoring requests to leave. So I asked for other ideas? Other than banning. Other than immediate PVP.
I think Cory had some really nice alternate punishments. Very creative. That's what I'm looking for.
Also, are the PC's in charge of the area allowed to get the fine form the PC that broke the law right there? Or is it up to the law breaker to voluntarily give it over? And if they don't then what?
Protection doesn't necessarily mean walls and gates, it means a way to deal with the offender that provides RP (hopefully, RP). I know there are suggestions here that I'm going to try out.
As for the jail time paradox that Goose brought up... well... some places take spitting very seriously. And not all places PC's and NPC's will go to beating up the offender and killing them when they break the law.
_________________
2015 Mr. AMIA with the Fabulous Estara ~ 2015 Best Developed SOB Character: Rith'tar
And sorry Tormak, not even the most sociopathic, sociopath will refuse to be escorted out of a place every single time. This 'that's how my PC would act' is still BS imho. A PC refuses to comply by arguing then what, my PC has to kill their ass to get them to comply? That's BS. Oh and btw, Commies character wasn't banned, not at all, he was removed along with others for a specific reason. There was no reason for Commie to take it OOCly at the time but he did.
You don't get to say how another PC acts.
Sometimes you got to show your teeth.
End of story.
_________________ Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
Joined: 02 Jun 2015 Location: Georgia, United States.
Seriously, I love you all. But you're not suppose to dry your laundry on public forums.
- - - - -
With that being said,
1. If you've the authority to command guards, then its fair to say the guards would obey you. While you can't emote for NPCs, its safe to assume the guards would listen. Simple.
2. PCs can only be forcefully held for 24 hours. If they're released prior to that, you two can't pvp again (if I recall correctly).
3. I agree that consequences is apart of the game. If you play a evil character and do evil deeds, then you're bound to get a very serious punishment. But no one is going to perma-altar my character without OOC consent / or A DM. I roll with the punches, e.t.c. Usually I don't reject any RP. But if PCs can do whatever they want to your char, and it is perma, then what stops a group of PCs jumping you everyday and slowly destroying your character?
Seriously, I love you all. But you're not suppose to dry your laundry on public forums.
Wrong, forum rules clearly state they can be used with discretion to explain situations and rulings.
Quote:
1. If you've the authority to command guards, then its fair to say the guards would obey you. While you can't emote for NPCs, its safe to assume the guards would listen. Simple.
How do you prove you have that authority? What happens if the PC would resist? A situation that was being handled purely IC by players has now forcefully, through no fault of the "wrong" side, been turned into a situation where any response but cowed leaving is now "metagaming". In what world is that fair to players engaging in good faith RP?
Quote:
2. PCs can only be forcefully held for 24 hours. If they're released prior to that, you two can't pvp again (if I recall correctly).
Is not a rule other than 24h forceful hold, which can be overriden by DMs if it turns into "i log off for 24 hours, come back and demand to be let out".
_________________ Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
Joined: 02 Jun 2015 Location: Georgia, United States.
TormakSaber wrote:
Quote:
1. If you've the authority to command guards, then its fair to say the guards would obey you. While you can't emote for NPCs, its safe to assume the guards would listen. Simple.
How do you prove you have that authority? What happens if the PC would resist? A situation that was being handled purely IC by players has now forcefully, through no fault of the "wrong" side, been turned into a situation where any response but cowed leaving is now "metagaming". In what world is that fair to players engaging in good faith RP?
Quote:
2. PCs can only be forcefully held for 24 hours. If they're released prior to that, you two can't pvp again (if I recall correctly).
Is not a rule other than 24h forceful hold, which can be overriden by DMs if it turns into "i log off for 24 hours, come back and demand to be let out".
The point I was trying to make is that the maximum jail sentence for arson and murder is the same as the maximum penalty for spitting on the sidewalk. "So I burned down the orphanage and I go to jail for 24 hours RL roleplay time? Alas and alack! Whatever shall I do?"
And again, I'm not going to argue bans here other than to say they are one tool that players have to keep out undesirable elements. You don't get to pick your punishment. If you don't want to run the risks of being punished with anything up to and including X, Y, and Z don't give anyone a reason to punish you. But that's not even the point of the thread to begin with and it's been derailed long enough.
YES! Without reservation, if someone is a threat you take out the threat immediately and in such a way that they won't even think about being a threat ever again. If someone makes a fist and says they are going to punch you in the eye you don't need to wait for them to take the first swing before you drop them. And yes, you should protect your faction areas the same as you would protect your domicile or, if you're playing a guard, expect your police or military to protect their municipality or country. To do less doesn't make a lick of sense and if you want to interact there's nothing that says that you can't do it in a place where neither of you isn't welcome.
That same punishment thing isn't really true though. I guarantee if someone murdered someone and there were witnesses and you captured and put them in jail the DM's would mandate a longer sentence.
MazeOfThorns wrote:
@ Commie, Seriously, that's bad sportsmanship right there. You want to get pissy with me OOCly then get a DM to moderate.
Your problem here is that you wouldn't listen to the facts that you missed in that situation. All you cared about was making me... Maze... look bad. OOCly. Right here in this forum.
You didn't know everything about the Cathedral. You didn't know everything about the situation at hand ICly so you went OOC about it.
Please stop derailing this because there are some really good comments and suggestions.
------------- Whoever pointed out that it shouldn't be goodly and badly, good point. I like things in nice tidy buckets. It's more about how to keep at least one little area from becoming a battleground.
I understand if a group wants to infiltrate say... the Cathedral in Khem to spring their guy. BUT It shouldn't be that every person that comes in gets to act like an ass then gets to refuse to be escorted out.
And sorry Tormak, not even the most sociopathic, sociopath will refuse to be escorted out of a place every single time. This 'that's how my PC would act' is still BS imho. A PC refuses to comply by arguing then what, my PC has to kill their ass to get them to comply? That's BS. Oh and btw, Commies character wasn't banned, not at all, he was removed along with others for a specific reason. There was no reason for Commie to take it OOCly at the time but he did.
My reply to Commie was to point out the problem of PC's ignoring requests, wanting to argue and /still/ arguing when the NPC guards are called. His suggestion was communication but as he demonstrated, communication doesn't work in situations where there is a PC ignoring requests to leave. So I asked for other ideas? Other than banning. Other than immediate PVP.
I think Cory had some really nice alternate punishments. Very creative. That's what I'm looking for.
Also, are the PC's in charge of the area allowed to get the fine form the PC that broke the law right there? Or is it up to the law breaker to voluntarily give it over? And if they don't then what?
Protection doesn't necessarily mean walls and gates, it means a way to deal with the offender that provides RP (hopefully, RP). I know there are suggestions here that I'm going to try out.
As for the jail time paradox that Goose brought up... well... some places take spitting very seriously. And not all places PC's and NPC's will go to beating up the offender and killing them when they break the law.
Well first all
Quote:
And sorry Tormak, not even the most sociopathic, sociopath will refuse to be escorted out of a place every single time. This 'that's how my PC would act' is still BS imho. A PC refuses to comply by arguing then what, my PC has to kill their ass to get them to comply? That's BS. Oh and btw, Commies character wasn't banned, not at all, he was removed along with others for a specific reason. There was no reason for Commie to take it OOCly at the time but he did.
You didn't escort me. You just said it was happening via an emote then closed the door and walked away removing my ability to RP about it. You don't need to kill someone either. Consider this event that happened last night;
I'm in the fort. Some guys that arn't supposed to be there walk in because the lock-script is wasn't applied correctly. I pull out my swords and tell them to leave. They get mad. Note that there are NPC's all around that would have not let these guys in, but the doors were unlocked so there they were. Despite having the authority to direct the NPC's, I just told them to leave, then walked them outside. I did this totally IC. That's how it should be. Despite everyone in the situation being a 'confirmed slayer' nobody died or even got hurt or flagged pvp.
Now look at the Khem thing; no way to reply, no way to interact, no way to do anything. That's why I disagree with it so much and why it's a bad example to justify people "not listening." The NPC's didn't actually say or do anything, so it's disingenuous to say they were ic ignored.
It wasn't a dig against you, I'm not attacking you, not trying to make you look bad, not trying to shit on you, but I didn't like what you did and think there's a better way.
Let's get this back on track;
1. People should be punished for misdeeds 2. The 24 hour 'freeeeeeeeeeeeeedom' rule is dumb unless the crime was minor/nonexistant, and just logging out for a day and coming back tomorrow is pretty much nonsensical abuse. 3. Cory's punishment model is good
Can we agree on these things? Lets not be negative and work on a solution.
I'm trying to be as uninvolved in OOC forum discussions as I can, so I'll try to make this succinct and hopefully helpful... But it probably isn't going to be succinct.
Quote:
So, when an PC attacks your faction members in your faction area or your city, town, home, area. How do you protect against it next time? Do you just have to wait until the attack happens and react?
Most likely you ban him. Here's the thing, though-- when people were voicing concerns about banishments from settlements, they weren't really talking about these cases where a player actively attacks or murders people in a settlement. They were talking about the more vague ones, when players were banned without even knowing that they earned it, or when they were banned by being associated with a faction, or when they were banned in one settlement and then they were summarily banned in all allied settlements.
Frankly, I think most people are in agreement that if someone straight up murders people in your settlement, and you know it was him (Or hell, even believe it; justice doesn't need to be fair, especially in some regions), you can ban him from entering again.
If you go back and read the comments from people in the other thread, I think you'll find this to be true. No one's saying that you can't use bans, they've just been trying to make sure it's: 1.) Necessary (Punishment fits the Crime) 2.) Done for IC reasons not OOC reasons 3.) Not done out of metagamed (accidental or otherwise) information without any way for the other player to check that. 4.) Balanced in major settlements through DM supervision
As an extra add-on, some players have been asking that others consider time limits to bans, take more care to alert the players OOCly that they've been banned, and to consider other more fun methods of issuing punishment.
I think this whole thread is an overreaction.
BUT, here are some ideas for alternatives or additions to judicial punishments.
1.) If you're running a settlement, or in charge of maintaining law in settlements, consider creating a list of lesser punishments to fit lesser crimes. This way, you don't have to resort to bans for crimes that could be managed. I'll list some examples: - Flogging, Whipping. Removing a finger or an eye. - Public humiliation (Stocks) - Community Service - Jail Time - Forced labor - Counselling - Parole Officers - Conversion therapy - Fines
2.) Consider creating a judicial body or council that handles crime with a more involved process than simply banning or killing/dropping a player. Hold trials or hearings, where evidence is presented (Maybe fabricated, even!) Instead of just dismissing a character and closing the gates from him, have a full trial with witnesses and a judge (*It doesn't need to be big). Here's another cool thing that can come from this: Instead of just banning a murderer who killed people in your city and escaped, hire a bounty hunter to collect him alive and return him to your settlement for due process. Every criminal who commits a crime and is not thoroughly processed should have a bounty placed on them, and every banishment should be issued in person with said process. Bounties themselves aren't evil, it's how a government can reach beyond its borders to collect criminals. If you implement this kind of system, you create amazing roleplay opportunities for lawyers, conniving fabrications, judges, bounty hunters (Of both the good and evil variety), and more.
There may be some banishments that you want to keep secret, but.. I don't know why, or how that would even work. Or reasons for banishment that you don't want to give because you're trying to protect secrets or informants. You should still probably have some sort of process for it that creates RP. But in general, if that's the case, don't ban them-- sting them. When they come back into the city, you stage a big arrest and catch them unawares.
3.) Escalation of force is something that should be learned and practiced. This is something that many Amians are guilty of. If someone is disrupting the public, or refusing orders-- yes, your only recourse might be to beat them down with mechanical PvP. But the good news is that you don't technically have to kill them. You can KO them and declare that they're still alive. In fact, you probably shouldn't. A problem that contributes to this is that people in a fight will generally reach first and foremost for their most lethal (And weapon focused) weapon. It never looks like a gentle beatdown if you've got a longsword out. I suggest that guards and enforcers in a city carry clubs or blunt weapons as a sidearm, even if it's not as good or effective. It immediately demonstrates a lower level of force (And it has to start somewhere!)
This stuff about "how to interpret" the 24 hour rule, being able to keep someone for three weeks or longer that way...
Come to an arranged gentlemans agreement that works for everybody. There's an expectation a capturer is to be logged in for the next 24 hours since someone was captured. Otherwise you have the potential to not provide RP (say it happens before someone sleeps and then they wake up later). That's a responsibility for the capturer to be there for the next 24 hours, not to expect 24 hours of total rp from a captive that's an avenue for bullying!
Just to clarify, the capturer needs to be there if they intend on keeping someone captive.
This stuff about "how to interpret" the 24 hour rule, being able to keep someone for three weeks or longer that way...
Come to an arranged gentlemans agreement that works for everybody. There's an expectation a capturer is to be logged in for the next 24 hours since someone was captured. Otherwise you have the potential to not provide RP (say it happens before someone sleeps and then they wake up later). That's a responsibility for the capturer to be there for the next 24 hours, not to expect 24 hours of total rp from a captive that's an avenue for bullying!
Just to clarify, the capturer needs to be there if they intend on keeping someone captive.
Given we all know how active I was ((before holidays...ect as that allways gets people busy)) The problem in that person being kept for three weeks it was all on his own fault, I play one person I was always able to be RPed with, it was the player who did not want to RP out a punishment and would instead play their alt.... so I refused to accept that as any time off the 24 hour holding, I had at the time screenshots of the player list and the times he was online and how long to even show he was online when I was online but refused to play on the locked up person.
So that prevented him from being able to claim I was not around for him to RP with as we were online for hours at a time each day, and prevented him from also waiting till I logged off to then log on the char to claim its all my fault for not providing RP and them him just claiming he was released because of OOC rules of me not being online 24 hours a day.
Its up to 24 hours, if the player shows willingness to RP out a punishment as I said before sometimes its 5 hours.... or any amount you feel fits the crime and if the person being punished you think is remorseful/ out early on good behaviour......but if they are trying to weasel out of punishment by playing alts, AFKing 75% of the time during the RP he is around for....ect you can be damn sure I will enforce every damn millisecond of that 24 hours.
Your notion that its "avenue for bullying" is also the reason why people have the mindset of just ban everyone for unlimited time from settlements because we cant really punish/deter people because the victims hands tied in so much red tape the player who committed a offence against you IC gets a slap on the wrist so you might as well just ban them till the end of time and make them a DMs problem.
_________________ ================-<Cory ShadowFlame>-================ Risenlord-Shifter(OMG a Non-Dragon Shifter that can hold his own in PvE)
Had a great no-guard moment today where a bunch of PCs used their epic powers to exert their wills. Can confirm, it's fantastic. Fangs were bared, slays were had.
Joined: 17 Dec 2013 Location: Just arrived from Korriban by Fury class Imperial Interceptor
Commie wrote:
You didn't escort me. You just said it was happening via an emote then closed the door and walked away removing my ability to RP about it. You don't need to kill someone either. Consider this event that happened last night;
I'm in the fort. Some guys that arn't supposed to be there walk in because the lock-script is wasn't applied correctly. I pull out my swords and tell them to leave. They get mad. Note that there are NPC's all around that would have not let these guys in, but the doors were unlocked so there they were. Despite having the authority to direct the NPC's, I just told them to leave, then walked them outside. I did this totally IC. That's how it should be. Despite everyone in the situation being a 'confirmed slayer' nobody died or even got hurt or flagged pvp.
Now look at the Khem thing; no way to reply, no way to interact, no way to do anything. That's why I disagree with it so much and why it's a bad example to justify people "not listening." The NPC's didn't actually say or do anything, so it's disingenuous to say they were ic ignored.
It wasn't a dig against you, I'm not attacking you, not trying to make you look bad, not trying to shit on you, but I didn't like what you did and think there's a better way.
The hell it wasn't. And gee Commie, guess what? The Cathedral isn't the same as the Fort. I don't care if you didn't like the way it was done ICly. Just by saying you think there's a better way for me to run my faction area proves its an attack. I don't come into the Fort and tell you how to have your PC react. And at that time /no/ there wasn't a better way to do things according to the PC in charge. And what you're saying is you didn't get your way so you threw a fit. You want to have your way? Don't go into the Cathedral.
Put simply:
TormakSaber wrote:
You don't get to say how another PC acts.
As for the Cathedral in Khem, the PC in charge there doesn't pull out weapons on people inside his own Deities church. You and your PC totally IGNORED the times he was asked, /asked/ to leave. Most of the crowd down there left when they were asked. Yours and three others didn't. Two were Kohlingen defenders, trusted individuals and allowed to stay in the room next to the dangerous prisoner. Yours and one other stood there and yours argued. What it came down to was that you didn't think that I, as the player, had the authority to command the NPC guards. If your character would have hiked his ass upstairs after being asked the first time they you probably would have gotten a bit more RP. But you didn't. That was your decision.
You're a proponent of PC's acting as they would act. Well there you have it. My PC acted exactly how he would have. Requested people get out of the area they shouldn't have been in the first place -- sorry no weapons drawn, no threats of violence, no personal escort when a prisoner was more important than arguing with the unknown guy. When that didn't work other guards were called to help your character decide to do as he was asked so that my PC could get back to dealing with the prisoner.
I stand by everything that was said and done. The DM confirmed that I didn't ask the guards to do anything they wouldn't have. I try to be very careful about that. The DM also suggested that I have a DM on hand for next time. Although clearly, there was no way to prepare that time since it was a sudden last minute decision to go to the Cathedral at all. This trying to get me in trouble for every little thing is getting really old, Commie.
_________________
2015 Mr. AMIA with the Fabulous Estara ~ 2015 Best Developed SOB Character: Rith'tar
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
FAQ
Search
Login
That being said, we have an extremely low server density with the majority of which is "goodly". As a result most of the substantial dm support and resources go towards this. There is much more infrastructure in place and "Evil" characters have very, very few options. Tarkuul is just a bit too evil for many and 98% geared towards the Arcane. Good has the rest of the map, really as player iniative leans towards that. I don't disagree with bans. I think that the use of them is too liberal and the severity to high. The problem with banning players is that you (from an administrative standpoint. ..even though I don't here) eliminate most of the conflict on Amia and it becomes a "tea party". This has happened before and some of the older players can attest that a conflict starved Amia is a boring one. I can empathize that allowing a known villain to walk freely until he does something silly, seems counter intuitive to your characters ambitions, but consider that the villain isn't then allowed to play to his strengths and cut you down unawares in the middle of nowhere. PvP rules take the teeth out of villainy. What happens then if these bans are allowed is that you create a safe, conflict free zone, to which the DM's are then forced to provide you with all external stimulus and evil folks do evil things without being able to interract with good characters and then must wait for the DM's to come and pander to them. The conflict within the borders of these towns should provide entertainment, and if it provide genuine frustration, we are taking things too seriously. The conflict is healthy. I agree to this as a person who plays good, evil and neutral characters. By no means do I think lawbreaking shoukd be tolerated within city limits..but once you end a fellows life...that kind of settles that infraction. Repeat offenders should receive more severe bans and the "perma" ban thing can be enforced, after the player has been given IC warning that his actions are going to result in this. How about we start up a "court" thread in each of the factions and allow a DM judge to mete out punishment, to include loss of gold or levels for those who break the law. Lets at least consider allowing evil characters a chance to interact with the other 5/8 of the server.
