[Sarinpa1]

Here we are, with yet another much needed suggestion that'll fall into the abyss of forgettance.

1b - Forcing death onto another person's character falls under the "no godmodding" rule. Only the person who's playing the character can ensure that the character is killed off.

In a scenario where we're interacting with people that roleplay their characters for them to accurately guide them through their (mis)fortunes in the fantasy land of Sigrogana, this rule doesn't come to play.

It's up to speculation why the rule exists in the first place, but that's not the subject of this topic.

Antagonism as a whole is something that heavily stimulates roleplay, livens it up, adds more realism, and actualy makes the combat system in place have a much bigger role in roleplay as a whole. Death is not necesairly the end-game of any kind of hostilities between players, yet it should be a real option.

It's not rare for people that're valued members of the community to hide behind the rule, voiding roleplays once the scales tip againts their favor. (Let's remember our ginger guard, for instance.) In the end, it doesn't hinder only people that'd kill left and right without a good reason just because they got a good hand of the combat system, ooc reasons, etcetera, but also people engaged in legitimate roleplays that'd end in death. A good roleplayer accepts their characters fate (Unless cases previously mentioned.) They risk their character, expecting the other roleplayer to do the same.

And then they win, wish to claim the fruit of their gamble and work...but suddenly

Local OOC Mcpussinson : no fuk u ---
1b - Forcing death onto another person's character falls under the "no godmodding" rule. Only the person who's playing the character can ensure that the character is killed off.

Mcpussinson falls down, wiping offf blood from his faec and runs for the hills after getting up


They could've died, lost the character, progress and such. Yet their opponent never had the intention of doing so.
The GMs are not allowed to override the rule either, so no matter how poor of an excuse people come up with for surviving the conflict, they can just scowl at them and that's about it. Repetitive offenders make no difference, effectively creating discepancies in roleplay, salt and well, generaly poor roleplaying enviroment.


Tl;dr

I propose a change to the rule.

If prior of the conflict both parties agree for the conflict to be severe consequences, be it crippling, disfiguring, or death, they're to go through with them upon loss.

Something something.

You get what i mean.

It will mean you're still protected from unfair deaths, from your favourite character dying if you ended up getting too attached, etcetera. But it will protect people that went into a roleplay, risking their character, without the other side doing the same.