AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

hendrack wrote:

Please do explain what RP "crimes" my characters or I am guilty of?

I believe he was referring to you complaining about "giving other players RP "the finger"" when you complained about accepting the fact that not everyone wants to be an adventurer.

What Curls said.

Last edited by hendrack on Mon, Nov 16 2009, 16:43 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Well, I make OOC fun of certain RP types but I don't ignore them IC. Saying "you can't hurt me anyway blah blah" is exactly that.

In some cases it's just making fun of the PvP-happy RP. If I were to ever act like that with any of my characters, it would be to piss off someone, and only to piss off someone. I'd feel bad afterwards, though, so I wouldn't really win anything but a bad consciense.

I do agree with a few points in Zante's post. The part refering to the fact that this pseudo-god mode happens on both sides of the coin. Its not an alignment thingy but more so a player issue.

Though, taking the OOC approach for some "victory" to soothe one's own wounded ego in hopes of annoying the other party is abit detrimental to the server atmosphere and not to mention pretty silly too imho.

That said, as much as Amia indirectly exacerbates this problem with the abundance of heal potions (Remove them!!) and raise scrolls available, it does boil down to individuals making an effort to seeing things differently and truly trying to avoid death.

Very often, it doesnt even require any humiliation but simple persuasion or diplomacy. More than a few seem to have the mentality that they are a "Star"/hero/god and expect to resolve every matter with their supreme martial prowress. If such is their character concept (which they are fully entitled to), it's only fair they back it up and be a sport should it not work out.

Off-topic:

corypx wrote:

I think its the other way around as the OOC fighting leads to bigger problem a event but put off 10mins is nothing big, leave a group fighting for 10min and it might take alot longer to get them under control

I'm sorry, did you just say major ooc disputes are solved in 10minuites? ..wow. Really? ..Ok. I usually grab a snack and strap in, it's gona be at least half an hour before the tells stop pouring in, and that's only
from a player-side point of view.

Telling them to take screenshots, send them in, and move on seems more effective if the DM is in the middle of an event, and there's no other DM online. I would want someone to say 'sorry I'm busy with RP in an event right now, send me the screenshots please and it will be handled' and then take care of the people in the event, not baby-sit kids who can't play nice at the expense of the people who are actively IC and enjoying themselves.

Mimiron wrote:

Eh, I agree pretty much with Gravemaskin's post. I originally hated how there was no death penalty, because that's what I was used to, and everyone would get up from a massive PVP battle and be like.. "Oh well." or something.

I would also like the point out that your statistics regarding you starting PvP are off, by about 40%. I realize this thread isn't about you in particular, or anyone for that matter, so I'll just keep it simple, and you're free to PM me ingame. But the bottom line is.. if your character is hated, and -not- feared by too many, they simply will try to kill you, and you being there is you causing the PvP. (In my opinion.) But that's not the only thing.

You don't have -anything- behind you to make any comment what so ever to the statistics I put forward in regards to Darthion.

And no, entering an area, passing through, interacting with characters while doing so, is not an initiation of PvP.

As I mentioned in one of my posts (which you should try reading), most encounters actually don't resort in PvP, since I OOCly choose not to due to the vast amount of encounters that -could- have resulted in PvP.

I gotta agree with Lalaland on some of his post. For as much grief as neutral and good charcters get for not "shaking in their boots" when evil characters come striding around, you certainly don't hear much complaining that evilies don't fear Paladins and good characters enough IC.

In truth, all extremes should fear or actively disdain interacting with each other a little bit, not just "Rawr, we're evil, be afraid of us or you're not doing it right." If you're a palemaster, then hell yes , likely, you should be a little shaken seeing 3 men with golden armor and white steeds run up to you. Just because a PC is evil doesn't mean you're impervious to backing down either. For Pete's sake, I've seen 3 different PM's stroll around in Kohl before with their bone arm showing, then when confronted just go "Pfft. I do not fear you and your holiness" and just port or go away. Now that should P.O. people, if you're getting upset about people not having IC fear.

I mean, it's a two-way street. Good fears Big Evil, Evil should fear Big Good. To a certain extent, Evil should fear Other Evil too(see Bloodrift wars). Half the time, evil characters summon undead and demons around paladins on purpose. And my response to that is the scream heard at the beginning of Six by All that Remains. Just because you're evil doesn't mean you don't have common sense to avoid conflict some of the damn time, nor that just because you're evil, you have to show off infront of a good character until they're almost forced into challenging you. Unless you're attempting to make your character look ridiculously cocky/insane, it's pretty much the equivalent of mooning a cop point blank, and just waiting there with your trousers down until he's demanded to do something. [/rant]

I am not in anyway putting down evil folk starting adverse RP with good folk. That's what RP is sometimes. I'm just saying sometimes, it can be initiated a lot more sensibly and less of a way that would scream "IMPENDING PVP" like walking up fully buffed to an altar of a apparently good-aligned-looking priest, summoning an undead, and emoting it calling for help as you abuse it. Yes, that has happened to me.

Course entering an area can be a provocation and initiation for pvp-conflict related roleplay. Its silly or extremely naive to say its not. Just like pissing against everyone's leg, especially big bad evil gits who wouldnt blink crushing your skull if you insult them, is a provocation for the same.

Phearnun wrote:

Course entering an area can be a provocation and initiation for pvp-conflict related roleplay. Its silly or extremely naive to say its not. Just like pissing against everyone's leg, especially big bad evil gits who wouldnt blink crushing your skull if you insult them, is a provocation for the same.

PvP-conflict related roleplay sure... but it doesn't need to resort to PvP.

Out of all the times Darth arrogantly ventured to Khem, how many of those resulted in PvP?

None.

So what are we actually suggesting here? Because a character has managed to become ICly hated by practically everyone, they can't go anywhere at all, since that's suppose to be a provocation for PvP-conflict related RP?

Wtf?

What cave am I suppose to be hiding in?

Dark Immolation wrote:

I gotta agree with Lalaland on some of his post. For as much grief as neutral and good charcters get for not "shaking in their boots" when evil characters come striding around, you certainly don't hear much complaining that evilies don't fear Paladins and good characters enough IC..

You don't quite understand Zante's M.O. I'll happily explain in a PM. But I assure you his mtoives in that post are not what you take them for.

Perhaps if the staff openly and actively starts attempting to balance for PvP I'd be more inclined to agree with Mago, Tormak, Iron, xordae et al, but until that point Nekhy is absolutely right that all PvP deaths are far better off being played out as KOs. The poster who mentioned that most conflicts (i.e. mundane "mouthing off" situations) would be far better off with fisticuffs has an excellent point as well, but people won't go with this precisely because they're more interested in winning generally than just having some fun. Thus, either rebalance things to account for that fact or be satisfied with roughing someone up being enough, in my opinion.

EDIT FOR AFTERTHOUGHT:
Ideally, this could be solved working within the current class rules mostly, by establishing some sort of duel etiquette, much like real-life knights or samurai had during the feudal era, if people still wanted lethal fights rather than fisticuffs over minor things, so things felt more fair. But again, people will look for any justification for their character to avoid following the etiquette here, so you have to force balance with engine unfortunately.

Mr Mago wrote:

What cave am I suppose to be hiding in?

I hear that wharftown has a nice one! *scampers away*

I have to agree with everyone that says that it's a player issue and not an alignment issue. Almost all my time on Amia has been in playing evil characters and I have had more than my fair share of PvP and conflict. I've seen one sub-epic paladin stand before half a dozen maxed out drow powerbuilds and not back down an inch. I've also seen this in a reversed situation, too.

It's okay to run and hide occasionally... it really is. I know I've had my characters do it numerous times. He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day.

I do think that a "helping hand" be given mechanically to make people a little more weary of losing in PvP. What that would be, I'm not sure. I wouldn't worry too much about the ability to grief, either. Seeing as how PvP'ing someone for no reason or without the consent, etcetera is already considered griefing and against the rules.

Perhaps some type of ladder system? Levels 1-5 get a -1 to AB and saves for 5 minutes. Levels 6-10 get -2 to AB, AC and saves for 10 minutes.... and so on and so on and so on. The more epic your character is, the more life is gonna suck if you get into some PvP and get your butt handed to you.

If someone PvP's you and leaves you in an area that you can't complete with the stat adjustments, screenie and send to a DM. A player always has to give another player an IC way out of PvP. Leaving the hunting area isn't considered to be an acceptable out.... I know that if I was in an area surrounded by hostile enemies that I couldn't defeat if I lost to this other player in PvP, I'd definitely be pretty motivated to ensure self-preservation.

Of course it's a player problem and not specific to alignments. I see it just as often with goodies as I see it with evils.

Honestly though, for classes, or any PC, who are "duty bound", accept that if you chose to be a Paladin, Cleric, Druid, EO, Protector of the Balance, Militia, etc. that you -will- be seeing conflict and very likely even have to PvP. If that is not your cup of tea, don't play these types of characters.

How are you going to be, for example, an EO Kellie and get mad because you run into a PM with a mummy? You put yourself in that situation at character creation and conception. You can't chose to be Cordor Guard and get all pissy when someone is causing an issue while you're hanging out with your Guard buds. It makes no sense at all.

Likewise, you can't play a Cyricist and get pissy when the Jergalite sees you smashing tombstones and smashes your face in kind. And you can't play a Banite and get angry because a Eilistraeen is stopping you from enslaving a old man.

Again, don't put yourselves in these situations when you know damn well that they're probably unavoidable.

Furthermore, if your uber good, uber evil or uber neutral and step on a crap load of toes, don't be pissy when you find yourself with little room to travel without being frowned upon or confronted. You made that bed. Lie in it.

Wow, this thread is long already.

I just wanted to reply to one point that's been brought up over and over and over:

"But if there will be ANY penalties for death, it just means that the PvP monkeys can make life shit for us! What if people go around being trigger happy?"

Guys, do not forget that the aggressor has to provide you with a GUARANTEED way out. This blows the argument right out of the water. People cannot be griefed on this server. If you are being griefed, all it takes is a screenshot and a message to a DM and the griefer is going to get his ass whopped.

That leaves us with exactly ONE situation where a death penalty would be imposed upon you against your will: Your character not taking the "Out". This is usually a pride issue, so grab your own noses on that one.

Enough PvP Disputes happen as it is. I imagine increasing the penalty for losing will not make this any better.

Christ, deciding what's an out for some people is pain enough. People disagree? The DMs get called in, and either we're the bad guy to the defender because we say "that was a valid out", or we're a bad guy to the attacker because we say to them "Sorry, that wasn't a valid out".

I'd rather be spending my time, you know, running events, quests, plots and the like than trying to keep up with an escalating PvP bitchfest every 30 minutes.

As it is now, yes, death has relatively low meaning. Yes, it sucks. Just work around it or don['t engage in it.

Last edited by FA_Frey_XC on Tue, Nov 17 2009, 2:41 AM, edited 1 time in total.

My honest opinion:

1.) Ron's post above mine is a perfect example of what PvP RP and conflicts unsupervised can bring to the DM team. I'm not saying every PvP encounter should have a DM watching over it (would be nice if that was so, most other servers that I've played on require it), but when there isn't any authority, people will take advantage of whatever they can.

It's human nature, I'm not trying to insult any one person.

2.) Mortality and Respect - I don't see this issue that Mago talks about in my RP with Frey. People don't seem to have a problem RP'ing intimidation or fear when dealing with him, and on most occassions I don't have to actual emote anything - they usually RP exactly how their character would react dealing with a Lich. That's credit to them, and I'd like to say thanks to everyone that does that.

I believe this is a representation of Xordae's point - that ultimately =is= a OOC issue creeping into RP. That is the OOC issue of respect. Like it or not, it won't change the truth that if the players you are engaging in PvP RP don't respect you on an OOC level, then likely they are not going to give a rats ass about RP'ing realistically.

Is this right? Of course not. Is this reality? Sure is. Mago, you yourself have expressed that "I don't give a rats ass about your opinion" already numerous times in this thread. That is totally your right to state, and I support that 100%. Regardless, people will react to that as they interprete it - that's their right too.

Add in the fact that a few (not all!) PvP encounters are one person and their friends attacking someone they might have an issue with OOC'ly.., you can imagine how that goes, and I think that's probably more representative of the issue Azrael was speaking of in the resolution of PvP issues and it being way over 10 minutes to resolve.

Whether you like it or not, whether it's right or not, they will take that IG, because ultimately it's people that RP the characters. That's just a fact of life. Take it or leave it.

We play this game to have fun, but sometimes your definition of fun isn't always mine. Playing Evil on a server like Amia is, by it's very definition, destined to loose. Its the nature of the world, good triumphs in the end, evil doesn't.

Now, that doesn't mean evil can't do things on Amia, please don't think that's what I'm saying because that's a completely different conversaton, one that's been had over and over again. The DM's have, in my opinion, given the players ample opportunity to affect and change the world we play in, and they have changed it.

This is ultimately what I said long ago, but please don't take that as I'm saying I told you so. More I'm just repeating what I said -

Striving to be nice, respectful and willing to compromise on an OOC level with your fellow players will engender a feeling of goodwill OOC'ly, and then people will be much more likely to RP with your character in a genial fashion.

Regards,

WonWon wrote:

I'd rather be spending my time, you know, running events, quests, plots and the like than trying to keep up with an escalating PvP bitchfest every 30 minutes.

As it is now, yes, death has relatively low meaning. Yes, it sucks. Just work around it or don['t engage in it.

That's right, there are plenty of stories that don't end with a character's sudden and brutal end. As players, you can decide for yourselves what is a 'fair' ending to a particular story, rather than just going with whatever you can do quick and dirty with the limitations of the NWN combat engine.

I know that death plays a part in the whole adventuring lifestyle, but what keeps things interesting is the constant narrow escapes from death, as you've seen yourselves once death (and the speedy return from death) becomes commonplace it loses its meaning.

It's better to do something that everyone can enjoy, rather than something that half of them could care less about, and if you use your heads I'm sure you'll figure out what to do.

Well my character is a coward, and the last time she was threatened with death, well second last time, she played her insanity up a few notches, she really hates dying.

The last time, her own team mate didn't even threaten to kill Isabela H, and she was cowering in the corner in fear. She really hates dying.

o0GuNz_N_RoSeZ0o wrote:

Of course it's a player problem and not specific to alignments. I see it just as often with goodies as I see it with evils.

Honestly though, for classes, or any PC, who are "duty bound", accept that if you chose to be a Paladin, Cleric, Druid, EO, Protector of the Balance, Militia, etc. that you -will- be seeing conflict and very likely even have to PvP. If that is not your cup of tea, don't play these types of characters.

How are you going to be, for example, an EO Kellie and get mad because you run into a PM with a mummy? You put yourself in that situation at character creation and conception. You can't chose to be Cordor Guard and get all pissy when someone is causing an issue while you're hanging out with your Guard buds. It makes no sense at all.

Likewise, you can't play a Cyricist and get pissy when the Jergalite sees you smashing tombstones and smashes your face in kind. And you can't play a Banite and get angry because a Eilistraeen is stopping you from enslaving a old man.

Again, don't put yourselves in these situations when you know damn well that they're probably unavoidable.

Furthermore, if your uber good, uber evil or uber neutral and step on a crap load of toes, don't be pissy when you find yourself with little room to travel without being frowned upon or confronted. You made that bed. Lie in it.

Summary: Any character ever in any Dungeons and dragons game can and will inevitably over the course of their life be drawn into conflict. Conflict that you may or may not win. Deal with it.

TormakSaber wrote:

Summary: Any character ever in any Dungeons and dragons game can and will inevitably over the course of their life be drawn into conflict. Conflict that you may or may not win. Deal with it.

I will be taking this and adding on to it a bit.

Don't only just deal with it... deal with it for a while. You lose, okay.... next time you're facing that same character, how about acting a little bit hesitant about fighting them. You already got your butt handed to you once, right? How many people do you know that'll stand up to someone who's already handed them their ass and not be the least bit afraid?

Two words to the 'Hesitant to Fight a character cause they beat you once before' .. Captain Ahab.

Be mindful, but yes do as your character really ought to do.

Last edited by TormakSaber on Tue, Nov 17 2009, 5:24 AM, edited 1 time in total.

Spoilers: everyone on the Pequod died except Ishmael. Including Ahab. (with no Res.)

Grymia wrote:

Two words to the 'Hesitant to Fight a character cause they beat you once before' .. Captain Ahab.

Be mindful, but yes do as your character really ought to do.

"Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale;
To the last I grapple with thee;
From hell's heart I stab at thee;
For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee."

"He piled upon the whale's white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down;
And then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart's shell upon it."

Ahab had one enemy, who he had dedicated everything towards destroying. Unless it's your nemesis that defeated you, it's not exactly a good comparison, and Ahab was most certainly in one of the looser definitions of lucid when it came to the matter (hence the quotes).

On a semi-tangential note, my character happened to pick a god who favors those who go up against impossible odds (Tymora). As such, it'd be rare for him to run away even if he knew he was going to get beaten down, 'cause that's how he rolls.

In other words, that's an IC excuse to not run from a fight, but obviously not everyone can use that one

Last edited by Pony on Tue, Nov 17 2009, 7:41 AM, edited 1 time in total.

Mr Mago wrote:

Phearnun wrote:

Course entering an area can be a provocation and initiation for pvp-conflict related roleplay. Its silly or extremely naive to say its not. Just like pissing against everyone's leg, especially big bad evil gits who wouldnt blink crushing your skull if you insult them, is a provocation for the same.

PvP-conflict related roleplay sure... but it doesn't need to resort to PvP.

Out of all the times Darth arrogantly ventured to Khem, how many of those resulted in PvP?

None.

So what are we actually suggesting here? Because a character has managed to become ICly hated by practically everyone, they can't go anywhere at all, since that's suppose to be a provocation for PvP-conflict related RP?

Wtf?

What cave am I suppose to be hiding in?

Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting. If you play a character which practically became hated by everyone, mostly due to violence and tyranny, and hence has a tendency to slaughter a lot of people, then it is best not to go to the places where those individuals rule. The Khem example is rather bad, as they still stood in a non-aggression pact to a certain point, hence he was not attacked. I doubt if Darthy walks into Kohlingen the TKs would hestitate to jump at him.

Kinda the reason the EO is/was banned from Cordor. While you expect some sort of fear or realistic reaction to your threats, I find it very silly for you to expect you can do such things and not suffer the consequences of that. It seems like you ask on the one hand for people to react properly to the threat of death, and on the other not expecting people to be appalled when it is inflicted.

If Darthy would enter the Cathedral of Saint-Elizabeth, I would see it as a clear pvp initiation and would ask you first inform a dm due to the guards there. He killed members of the group, was told to stay away from Khem and especially the kelemvorite ground and is seen as an extreme threat, mostly due to the things he stated. Wether we attack him or not depends on the situation, but I believe it would be fully acceptable and understandable to do so, and his one way out is running the hell away and quickly.

That does not change one bit though that I agree with you that most people react to the possibility of death, or various issues even, in a fashion that makes me prefer to avoid portions of the server as much as possible. Top on those lists are people who stop cooperating, tell you how often they normally beat people in pvp and begin telling you how they will get you back. Eck.

Darth's example extends beyond Khem: It's a fair bet to say that if you're not a Banite or sympathetic, you probably want darth dead for one reason or another. This means that literally, aywhere Darth goes has the potential to be "Hostile territory".

Phearnun wrote:

Mr Mago wrote:

Phearnun wrote:

Course entering an area can be a provocation and initiation for pvp-conflict related roleplay. Its silly or extremely naive to say its not. Just like pissing against everyone's leg, especially big bad evil gits who wouldnt blink crushing your skull if you insult them, is a provocation for the same.

PvP-conflict related roleplay sure... but it doesn't need to resort to PvP.

Out of all the times Darth arrogantly ventured to Khem, how many of those resulted in PvP?

None.

So what are we actually suggesting here? Because a character has managed to become ICly hated by practically everyone, they can't go anywhere at all, since that's suppose to be a provocation for PvP-conflict related RP?

Wtf?

What cave am I suppose to be hiding in?

Yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting. If you play a character which practically became hated by everyone, mostly due to violence and tyranny, and hence has a tendency to slaughter a lot of people, then it is best not to go to the places where those individuals rule. The Khem example is rather bad, as they still stood in a non-aggression pact to a certain point, hence he was not attacked. I doubt if Darthy walks into Kohlingen the TKs would hestitate to jump at him.

Kinda the reason the EO is/was banned from Cordor. While you expect some sort of fear or realistic reaction to your threats, I find it very silly for you to expect you can do such things and not suffer the consequences of that. It seems like you ask on the one hand for people to react properly to the threat of death, and on the other not expecting people to be appalled when it is inflicted.

If Darthy would enter the Cathedral of Saint-Elizabeth, I would see it as a clear pvp initiation and would ask you first inform a dm due to the guards there. He killed members of the group, was told to stay away from Khem and especially the kelemvorite ground and is seen as an extreme threat, mostly due to the things he stated.

That does not change one bit though that I agree with you that most people react to the possibility of death, or various issues even, in a fashion that makes me prefer to avoid portions of the server as much as possible. Top on those lists are people who stop cooperating, tell you how often they normally beat people in pvp and begin telling you how they will get you back. Eck.

Also with back on subject of people fearing death and fear pain. I bring up what he said above about going into certain areas. If you are say a human and you enter near the drow cities chances are you know for a fact that someone will pvp you. True you did not start the pvp, but by being someone you know would cause pvp in my view is the same thing as being the one that first attacks. So many examples a drow outside winya chances are if a elf sees you icly pvp gonna happen 90% of the time. The fear is simple that drow ~should~ be scared knowing not metagaming that a elf patrol could walk by at any moment aka its a city the patrol could be easily 20+ elfs. Just find it funny how so many people go to some places that icly they would know better. In real life would you walk down the worst part of town you can think of alone? No simply because you know that is not where you should be.

Just how did that deteriorate to a pvp realism discussion again?

I think the original point is that people treat respawning as an IC mechanic.
It did happen to me, totally screwed up the RP I had with an evil character, because, well, the 'good hero' would come back, tell me out, etc.

I think I remember that there was a rule once that said that you don't remember anything from before you die.

Yeah well, not remembering five minutes doesn't mean you can't deduce who killed you. Unless you never even saw them kill you.

And yeah, the idea behind that was the same - to avoid players using the eZraise mechanic to have a constant blood-feud with the one person just because. I don't know if it fits in now though.

Anyway, if you don't storyboard a satisfactory ending with the other player, then whatever you mash together may not be enjoyable for anyone. So of course you'll get the 'I'm immortal' line when all they have to look forward to is more awful one-way RP.

And I'm not saying that every encounter consists of one-way RP, but if there is a complaint to be made that's probably it.

Which perpetuates the situation more: The character that insists they are immortal, IC and OOC and dies because of his giant mouth, or the character that reacts to this by putting them in the dirt again?

First one, if you ask me. The second is just answering their statements. The first is abusing OOC knowledge to godgame.

Well it's not enough to just point the finger at the one abusing OOC knowledge. If they're doing that, they have a reason. Even if the reason is that they're a compulsive godgamer.

TormakSaber wrote:

The first is abusing OOC knowledge to godgame.

IC knowledge.

Seriously. How is it OOC knowledge when it's clear to the character that he/she has died before, and been returned to life every single time? They do know this, because it's the reality they "exist" in. There still isn't anything close to an explanation of why they wouldn't know. Iron came closest with the whole glossy thing, but if they die in-game/IC then live in-game/IC, they will know that they were raised in-game/IC. You can't just take the before and after part, call them in character, and say that whatever happens in between is OOC and metagaming without offering up any real argument that this is the case.

Last edited by Nekhy on Tue, Nov 17 2009, 12:50 PM, edited 1 time in total.

It is a paradox and doesn't work, because the reason they're alive is OOC. But IC knowledge derived from an OOC source is the classic definition of metagaming. In this case, the "source" is the action of getting raised, because that action is purely OOC.

Dakotaen wrote:

TormakSaber wrote:

The first is abusing OOC knowledge to godgame.

IC knowledge.

Seriously. How is it OOC knowledge when it's clear to the character that he/she has died before, and been returned to life every single time? They do know this, because it's the reality they "exist" in. There still isn't anything close to an explanation of why they wouldn't know. Iron came closest with the whole glossy thing, but if they die in-game/IC then live in-game/IC, they will know that they were raised in-game/IC. You can't just take the before and after part, call them in character, and say that whatever happens in between is OOC and metagaming without offering up any real argument that this is the case.

Iron and I were debating that for the first four pages.

Yurell wrote:

IronAngel wrote:

[*Cut because I agree*] If you do make such IC conclusions, you should also forsake the protection of the rules and allow others to make similarly viable conclusions. It works both ways, or neither.

I think that's a fair enough compromise, to be honest.

That was the conclusion we ended up with at the end ... it is IC knowledge of an OOC courtesy, if you come up with those conclusions.

Yes. Your character has absolutely no way of knowing it, but knows it nonetheless.

It really doesn't work.

That part I get. Which is why I'm saying, if the character knows it, the raising being OOC or not, it's not metagaming for said character to believe that chances are he'll get right back on his feet.

Free point.

You are not obliged ever to provide a game-engine raise.

It's just 'good form'

Dakotaen wrote:

That part I get. Which is why I'm saying, if the character knows it, the raising being OOC or not, it's not metagaming for said character to believe that chances are he'll get right back on his feet.

But if you are using OOC rules to get to IC conclusions, wouldn't it also be fair to waive the OOC rules so that your character can come to the full spectrum of conclusions? I believe this was Iron's point.

That doesn't apply to a character knowing that he/she is alive, though. I'm not debating whether or not they know why they're alive, but they damn sure know that they are. In a lot of cases, they'll know that it's likely they were killed, too, and even if not, there may have been witnesses.

If they're walking around on their own and die, they might just wake up and think they've been knocked out or something, and some nice dude hauled their hides back to Cordor for some TLC. But it's pretty hard to ignore five partymembers telling them they died. As well, if they've faced off against other adventurers before and woken up on the battlefield, for whatever reason, they're well aware that somehow they were brought back to life.

I do see the issue here, but what I'm trying to say is, untill some (OOC, funny enough) rules are made on this matter, it may be lame to not fear death at all IC, but it is IC.

555444333 wrote:

Free point.

You are not obliged ever to provide a game-engine raise.

It's just 'good form'

Is this true?

Meaning, that you dont have to raise someone after a pvp? I always thought it was necessary. Simply because, leaving the person dead achieves nothing but wasting the victim's time.

On the topic of OOCly/ICly knowing a PC would always be alive, I actually think thats awfully bad sportsmanship. The main reason why one is alive is purely due to OOC reasons really such as a compulsory raise and no enslaving beyond 24 hours etc.

Without such measures in place, there is in theory *alot* to fear. Be it being imprisoned for infinite years or simply death with your soul trapped etc.

Taking the OOC courtesy someone who plays by the server rules gives you and then using it as an excuse to RP god-mode/immortality seems akin to using the money someone donated to you to buy a machete to rob his family.

Jas wrote:

555444333 wrote:

Free point.

You are not obliged ever to provide a game-engine raise.

It's just 'good form'

Is this true?

Meaning, that you dont have to raise someone after a pvp? I always thought it was necessary. Simply because, leaving the person dead achieves nothing but wasting the victim's time.

They respawn for free after five minutes, but I've always found it polite to give the OOC raise, as a sign it was just a bit of fun and there're no hard feelings.

I'm still not getting one thing, though.

Where/who/what are all these people that are supposedly saying "I'm Immortal" IC? I have seen a share of perturbing things in my years in Amia, but I've yet to see this (thank goodness). I mean, it's just counter intuitive as well. If you get killed then you aren't immortal. Just because you got ressurected by someone/something else doesn't mean you're immortal, you still got killed and died in the first place! o.O And like it was said, although you know OoCly that you'll come back, there is nothing to gaurantee that from an IC perspective.

I have to disagree with Yurell on that point, there really is no "empiracl evidence" in that sense. It's like traveling in a car, and all the times in your life that your car's broken down on you, someone pulled over to help you. You're just lucky. That's it. You'd be foolish and nigh insane to think that just because it's happened every time before, it will happen again, even if it has. You could get a flat out in the middle of nowhere, you could get mugged by somone pulling over, you could just be stranded for days until someone finds you.. IF they find you. Same with being dead and ressurection for a PC. No matter how many times you've been rezzed or such, the IC is that you were just lucky to be found if you died out in the middle of nowhere.

Again, I've never seen anyone verbally claim to be "immortal" IC based off the fact they can be or were rezzed. Certainly not in, before, or after PvP either. And a good thing too, because then some of my less nice characters would probably go out of their way to show them exactly how mortal they are. :twisted:

It's not so much a literal "I'm immortal! You can't kill me!" as a figurative statement of such. If Character A stomps Character B into the dirt and B comes back again and again and again to the same result, but doesn't cease... they're pretty much saying that they're immortal and they're not afraid of anything A can do to them.

But yeah... if you want to use the every time they die they get rez'd as an argument, then you have to use the whole thing. That character should be doing all sorts of insanely stupid things. Not just standing up to fight in nigh impossible odds. Try to make that 15' jump from one mile high cliff across to the other mile high cliff while wearing full plate, for example. If your character thinks he's immortal, he's going to think he's immortal all the time. It doesn't just spring up when he's about to fight someone. Using it in that fashion is the epitome of godgaming to me and makes me a sad panda.

I have seen the so-called justification of immortality in RP (as in, after some supposed stomping). And you're right, it does skip the OOC bits.

Kinda makes me wish I had shot it down there and then.

All in all does it really matter? Focus more on the RP of before and after a PvP battle and not on the person coming back alive later on. I have heard several times now when someone was going to throw Godo off a cliff say why? He will just come back. That type of IC or OOC comment is detrimental to the RP at hand.

IC wise there are many reasons a character survives, a cleric raised them, they wasn’t truly dead in the first place and even their God decided they was still some use so they brought them back. Do not look at all those reasons and say that is what will happen, there are no seers of the future to say for positive.

Fear is and has been from what I have seen played here, running away, stopping a fight, ect ect. Remember also that PvP doesn’t always have to end in death either, if you are enjoying the RP of the conflicts then also try to extend it further by not killing, especially fast deaths with instant kill spells or such.

Main thing is to not focus on the character returning sometime in the future but the RP at the time and possible RP with them in the future. I also see allot of the OOC raises, why? For one you can do a IC raise as well to help instill more fear of your character through more RP after you smacked them down. For another you said your auto raised anyways after five min, that five min can be a slight OOC punishment in itself from dieing. Why not extend it to say fifteen min to make it worse as well and just remove the OOC raises all together. Either you raise them IC wise or they wait the 15 min to see if their God raises them?

Godo doesn’t believe he is immortal, nor does he have a lack of fear but he still will be killed 90% of the time, he’s meant to lose most of the time but not all the time so should he be perm killed or thought of as immortal just because you see him later on? Which would you all rather have, more realism or more RP and fun?

What I've experienced, quite often, when giving an IC raise after PvP, is that the character being raised usually immediately chugs down a heal potion, casts GS / starts buffing / runs off. With no RP to it.

I give OOC raises to those who I feel have made some form of contribution to the server through the RP and PvP.

Those who tried to be jackasses, don't get an OOC raise.

Yurell wrote:

They respawn for free after five minutes, but I've always found it polite to give the OOC raise, as a sign it was just a bit of fun and there're no hard feelings.

Cant you change the setting and therefore change that?

I guess my opinion was this:

If your character behaves like he cannot die or lose gear (due to IC experience that was caused by OOC rules), it's reasonable to let the other PC make his own IC conclusions: that he can steal your gear and chop you up so you can't easily be raised. Since you insist that your character's fearlessness is purely IC, I think you should accept that the other PC's response is purely IC too, and not refer to the OOC rules that would otherwise protect you from permadeath or gear theft.

If, on the other hand, you acknowledge that the only reason your PC has avoided any serious consequence so far has been an OOC one, and agree to put as little emphasis on that knowledge as is reasonable, then I think you're also justified to refer to the rules for protection.

This, of course, is not a viable suggestion for a new rule. There's no way you could actually define when a PC is fearless due to OOC knowledge and forsakes his OOC protection, and when it's actually purely IC-motivated. It is a policy I suggest players adopt as an honor system. It's what I think it reasonable, justified and fair. I guess that's the point of this topic: to make players reconsider their stance and change for the better. Alas, I'm probably preaching to the choir and such an idealistic suggestion isn't going to affect the tasteless jerks who don't even frequent the forum.

Mortality and You.

Who is online