Killing of a Character

DAMN YOU I DIDN'T SAY YOU COULD DO THAT!

...


*splat*

This whole discussion reminds me of the beginning of this (Whcih you should all watch because it's a fucking fantastic film anyway):



Thing is; yes, consideration should be given to find a conclusion other than death when it's abundantly clear the other party doesn't want that. That said; RP is about stories. Character's stories, guild's stories. If there's no risk, no losses, then we end up with a collection of very odd, bland stories full of un-killable self-inserts that repeatedly pull bizarre stunts and stroll off chipper and scot-free. I'm not talking about being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or winding up in a bigger mess than anticipated. But the ones that are given multiple warnings, multiple character-breaking flukes or mercies or happy accidents and continue to push and do ridiculous stunts; see Helmfried's happy shadow-flamer for one. There's plenty. And in all honesty, there's nothing that can happen about it, because there's no GMs tied up with RP, or the rp-ing community.

I'm not touching the 'who owns where issue', that's a different kettle of fish IMO. And I certainly don't really support a "you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, now you die" approach; but an awful lot of players never take the opportunity to retreat, when given, and instead press the issue until it's at the point of a killing blow before backing down. That's where things become tricky, especially if they repeat the behaviour.

Whilst I'd never kill a character without their OOC permission, I find it necessary that there is a constant incoming flow of new, fun characters. Meeting the same person on the street every day gets dull, doesn't it?

What I hate more then people refusing to ever kill of their char, are people who magically revive/resurrect their char. I know it is within the boundaries of lore, but I can't help but be annoyed by the folks that have their head sown back on and happily run around as if nothing ever happened.

It's typical that some people avoid change as much in their RP as they do IRL. Change is necessary, it keeps things new and fresh. Change isn't always for the better, but the nice thing is that you can simply try again if it didn't turn out the way you wanted.

I agree with Sullee...let's kill Velspeth

indeed i agree.. my chareshia is dead.. but once inn a blue moon i will log her and as she is dead ic.. i play her as a sort of wraith.. a lingering spirit in eastvale loging camp due to the violent self distructive nature of her death.. she did not go peacefuly thow sadly nobody is yet to be online when im on chareshia haunting the place

Well I don't think you need to know the lore to understand that if you are insulting a race of people, in their land, aggressively, in a world of war.. you're going to get killed.

What he actually did was....

[quote="grufftoof"]

Vaell wrote:

I still don't truly understand what this "living" (no one told me what that actually means yet!) person did that was actually "silly" or even worse "stupid" just by exploring the world we live in, and abiding by the actual RP ruleset...

A living is everything besides forsaken or deathknight so yes other horde races and alliance, and the argument that Deathknell being horde territory and so they can just walk in there is silly. I've heard it many times before and it doesn't hold up. Because that would mean your private bathroom is horde territory as well and everyone should be able to walk in right (silly example I know but you get the point)

And yes we cannot realy CLAIM any territory but we do so RP wise and IC. If some other player wishes (be it a living or a undead one) to roleplay with us that is absolutely fine. But don't forget we are forsaken and life hasn't got much value for us and we tend to not care if people die or not (of course that is ICly and we OOCly don't want to bloody kill every player there is that would be stupid) Also take in mind that the majority of the forsaken population is of the "evil alignment". So of course we aren't going to be nice, but I've seen a lot of other options being opened up although the fact still remains that the other player should accept responseability.

Although I've seen that the general consensus is that if you do stupid stuff you should take it like a man/woman and accept penalty.
And of course you should give the "target" in question time to flee and such (which was the case in the original example), but if said target keeps on being ignorent... well... I don't realy want to exclude anyone from RP but /ignore then?

And as Daeyna already stated that I used this example to get a general view on how this like this should be handled according to the general playerbase. So I thank you all for your input and I shall put this to use IC and OOC.

Lexgrad wrote:
Jarric died. Not quite as dumb as this but yes, he lost a duel to a younger, fitter, better fighter. It is bad RP to coat him in a (cant die) shield of RP imho. It is the way I RP. Jarric would be dead if it wasnt for Dru. For me it isnt about whether jarric died or didnt. It was about RPing his wounds and the emotes of those who tried to save him.

When you say something as: Not quite as dumb, does that mean that you wouldn't let your char die in a situation like that?

which brings me to the point: The only person that can decide if its suitable to die in a situation, is the owner of the character. You and only you can make that decision. You can't decide that for everyone. Since people's perception of "quite as dumb" change. and in my experience, its always the person that tries to kill somebody that accuses the not dying person of "bad RP", and never the other way around. Because its bloody easy to deliver a killshot when you think its good, funny, right and plausible to do.

You cannot decide when it is sensible for a char to die or not, when it is sensible for a person to be captured or not when its sensible to rape someone or not, you can only decide when its sensible for your character to try any of those things, while oocly accepting that it doesn't always work and then either find a lesser method to resolve the conflict, or accept a poweremote to see your target get out of it.

Reynar / Raviran wrote:

Amaryl wrote:

There is also the option that the criminals beat up the annoying person, and t hen toss him out of the bar.

or lock him up... or make fun of him..

or summon a demon.. that tries to tear his dick off..

or laugh it off, as if the dude doesn't mean anything

or fill in your own scenario.

killing isn't the only option available to you, to resolve the situation that doesn't break character.

considering if you do a "killshot" without consent you are inviting a poweremote.

if you don't want that power emote, don't do the killshot.

I was only making a parable what would have been the MOST general conclusion. Of course chances of something happening are never 100%. For example Al Qaeda could have bombed the building next to it, thus causing everyone forget about their little dispute. (Really poor option but.......'s all good) But I was clearly comparing the situation with the gangsters, what would have gone down MOST LIKELY in real life. Just my viewpoint, nothing else.

RP is a two-way street. the most logical, most likely conclusion is the conclusion to which both parties are happy with oocly. and if one of them doesn't want to die...

The moment your first instinct is to go for the kill, you're putting yourself in a situation where 9 out of 10 times you're going to be disappointed, if not 99 out of a 100 times. And the only person that's responsible for that disappointment is yourself.

If you RP together you're responsible not only for your fun, but also the fun of the other guy.

Right, so this "living" was a Horde character? You contacted them by whisper to explain and stuff?

Cos it's really not clear. In character warnings could (for whatever reason "deafness", "failure to understand the language", "fear", "arrogance"... you get the idea) be ignored. But an OOC whisper would help explain (your view).

You're still laying claim to the area, which is intrinsic to this whole point of discussion, and is (I still believe) one of the two things being done wrong here.

I'd be interested why you think the character being in the area doesn't hold up, and would be "silly" (and we're not talking pissing in the Church font here are we? We're just talking about walking around [which could have been for a myriad reasons, from picking herbs to visiting a friend's grave]?).

Also, why is it "fact ... that the other player should accept responseability" when that responsibility lies on them knowing your RP in your (self proclaimed) area of power/interest? I don'y know all the places I'm not "supposed to" go. Nor would I really be governed by someone else's borders, though I'd at least talk if whispered by an interested party. But that's being polite, innit.

I'm still wary, as Amaryl seems to be, with all this talk of "dumb", "stupid" and "silly". All because the actions don't fit in your (or our) limited (and it is limited) view of RP and what is acceptable.

With permission and behalf of Morthimus

Reading through the list of arguments prevented I'd like to plainly point out that most if not all have not properly comprehended the example and the question proposed here. Let me reiterate.

The example is proposed as such, a living with full OOC knowledge of the guild decides to wander into a Cultist event and disrupt a sermon. The reaction is obviously dealt with in an IC manner - The perpetrator, (i.e the living) starts a scuffle, even threatens the holy leader of this specific Cult. So the members of this Cult naturally react negatively to this perpetrator, (note, everything is still in-character). As it progresses the perpetrator puts up a massive fight, perhaps injuring several members and using powerful emotes and god emotes to attempt to escape.

I would personally not be hard pressed to literally punish a person stupid enough to expect to attack, insult and pester a Forsaken zealous cult and expect not to be tortured or even possibly killed.

Another personal example I've generally used would have been with my experience with - A scourge elite fighting force that once or twice was insulted and attacked by a single person. In a time long ago a Death Knight joined preaching Ebon Blade beliefs to us, ICly, this is warranted as instant death. There is no excuse.

A person does have say to their characters death OOC, but they also sign a contract when they join a dangerous unscripted situation which would be hazardous to their character. If they don't want to risk their character and bitch OOC about saving him/her, then they shouldn't get involved in such a situation. It is simple, be aware OOC or take the consequences IC.

Most or all have probably failed to comprehend because the posts and information was sporadic and unclear from the start.

Communication in a written forum can be tricky, we all know this, surely?

However, with the info as above now stated. Making an agreement (which is or could be open-ended, with no timeframe) that could lead to a permanent death, or some strong repercussion, is groovy. I don't think we've argued against death being fine (as any RP is really) as long as both parties have agreed to that.

The bandying round of certain phrases (silly, lolRP etc), and the lack of clarity until later on as to what "living" meant caused confusion. The lack of any actual confirmation that an agreement had been reached with the "living" in question didn't help at all either.

If there is a specific occasion of "God Emoting" etc, then that's one thing in particular. And again could have been stated "this happened on X occasion". But maybe that's just me wanting to know more facts in order for things to be clearer.

And I do agree, massive powerplay and ninjaskills emoting is usually shoddy RP. But I aint in place to judge someone's RP style or such as being better or worse than mine. Even if it is.

Helmfrid wrote:they get into a situation where their character is logically going to die
...
This keeps happening to us in the Chapter as of late.

Half the problem is the loon getting in trouble. The other half is your order creating situations where others should die.
This is isn't meant as a negativism... But I do feel you should try to look at this differently: you create situations through your RP that you impose on others. Imagine a band of Orcs would charge Northshire. There's lore to support that situation (quests?!). They could, in their own RP and mind, create a situation that would logically imply that any Anethion follower showing his face in Northshire ends up dead, buttraped and his head sticked on a pike with an undead curse. Does that sound acceptable to you? Probably not.. because in your mind you own that territory to such extent that they can't walk past your whatever-you-call-guards that makes the region impenetrable.

Creating a situation where you deem it acceptable to kill off people is simply a logically supported form of powerplay. It's no different than "aiming a gun at a player's head at point blank range and firing it". If the victim refuses to accept your "you should die now" rules, then that's not his/her problem. If you're a good roleplayer, you create a situation "deemed unescapable IC" which proves to be very "escapable" (Think James Bond styled execution).

Never the less.. despite my discontent about such situations.. I do feel people should be more tolerant about deaths. Then again.. there's so much OOC effort to characters that it's unacceptable to dictate such.

Right, okay, The Cult of Shadow (The Guild) is a part of the Cannon Lore organization The Cult of Forgotten Shadow, Who Own Deathknell, meaning we do in a sense have a claim to deathknell, and also, Deathknell is full of Raving fanatics who follow the Forgotten Shadow and it's many virtues, and these virtues Dictate things such as we should kill the living and what such, so if any living goes into Deathknell, full of raving fanatics, they are pretty much asking for their death. As a human, would you wander into Orgrimmar? No, because it's illogical. Orcs hate humans, like Undead hate living, no one in their right sense of mind would walk into Deathknell, unless they were undead.

And how many of the Cult's characters died in the fight? It was a fight to the death, no?

Your logic on the area is sound. You have every "right" ICly to kill things. But you can't translate that to an OOC enforcement of killing characters.

The Cult of Shadow did attack us in Eastvale once, didn't they? I don't recall any dying. How is that different? Or the number of cultists that escapes from the Keep of our King after being revealed. Or the number of cultists parading with their powers in the Cathedral.

It's not good roleplay to expect to walk into such places and come out unscathed, but enforcing death OOCly isn't exactly a bright example of fine roleplay either.
Whether or not a character dies is a choice that can be made by the player controlling the character... And that player alone. It's as simple as that. Surely your creative minds can conceive more outcomes to such a situation than death?

Was this a poor outcome of a poor RP situation? Yes. You have my sympathy for the injustice of the situation, but it doesn't permit enforcing deaths. Not without explicit agreement of all parties involved. I would encourage the player to make it a heroic death. Or at least make it a narrow escape. But not.. -enforce- it.

It's not like that, I think Marri just used a bit of a poor choice of words. We would never -enforce- a Death on a character, let's get that clear.

I had a simlier thing once. 9 DKs vs 3 living under the acherus. Gave 2 chances to run away then tried to capture them but the 3 were only interested in winning and fighting. It never got to the stage that we discussed death and i would have been happy witth them running really.

I dont believe in forcing death on guys, bu dont go into really dangerous situations without being prepared to be hurt.

i wasn't trying to say enforce death, more, know what your getting into, because i am pretty sure we whispered them lots and lots, "we attack any living that go to deathknell because we hold it sacred" and if he went in there and did ninja pew pew stuff (just a guess, haven't been online in awhile) then i can understand peoples hate and annoyence

Aye.. That I agree with

Monrena wrote:indeed i agree.. my chareshia is dead.. but once inn a blue moon i will log her and as she is dead ic.. i play her as a sort of wraith.. a lingering spirit in eastvale loging camp due to the violent self distructive nature of her death.. she did not go peacefuly thow sadly nobody is yet to be online when im on chareshia haunting the place

You make me feel very guilty.

Hopefully i've improved.

improved? how so? hmm

I'm unsure if thats meant negatively or positively

Straying from that sentence, i don't know. I just look back at my RP and think, oooh my god i waz so bad, QQQQQ /emo corner.

This isn't about how bad i am though, so whoever would like to continue the threads original purpose /push