[Snake]

How about being able to apply for villain characters, that the GMs can load you up with a char you submit for them to review?

[Poruku]

 the ruling honestly should stay. It stinks, I get it, we all do. But it just what we gotta accept in the end on it, it there for good reason after all.

I guess I have to disagree with you because to me the real game is the rp aspect and I just don't have endless free time to grind. I simply do not see the benefit of lengthening the time it takes for alts to rise in power. Because in the end that's all it does. I don't particularly understand how your points in the post support the ruling.

Seriously, who cares if a new char quickly becomes strong?

[Dezark]

Seriously, who cares if a new char quickly becomes strong?

Same people who don't see any issue with rping and doing things be it normal or anatag without being fully leveled and geared I imagine, but that just my guess.

That said, fine if it not agreed with or not particularly understood on, since i'm just referencing the same points others had made on why removing it isn't the go to, take it as you will.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Autumn]

How about being able to apply for villain characters, that the GMs can load you up with a char you submit for them to review?

The rare good Kunai idea, though I trust this could be refined to be a bit simpler, but still rely on GM ruling.

[Sawrock]

To create a clear division between villain characters and other “normal” characters is detrimental to roleplay. I’ve had characters start as villains in the past that eventually turn into someone more ethically sound, and I’ve had “normal characters” turn into someone with more villainous intentions. Purposefully creating a segmented view and process for these kinds of characters would be more damaging to roleplay possibilities than not- what if I have a GM-loaded-out who, due to roleplay, views things another way? Does all my equipment get destroyed? How do you know some of it wasn’t traded off? If a character is marked as a villain, can they never be considered heroic by any faction with any length of time given?

The freeform nature of roleplay is to the benefit of the game in this instance. We should not systemize it.

[Moku203]

I will say that even though many of us do, and have stretched the no twinking rule, it should remain, for many of the points I've seen here.

Kunai had the same Idea I have had knocking around in my head for awhile as well, in that if you have a character that you intend to only be evil, and to eventually die with no chance to be redeemed, yes, you should be able to apply for event help that it can then be kitted, and of course all of the gear you have would be tracked to some degree.

to prevent the trading of the gear, it could be Regaliaed (not sure if GM's have the ability to spawn Dono Items, so this is just an idea) with a description marking it as such, and if this system is abused, you'd simply be blacklisted from applying for another villain.

Saw does bring up the good point of it's far better to build it up, which gives you time to make enemies, make allies, and even have a change of heart, I had a character who did this exact thing, some of you may remember Unit-97, or not, it was a very short lived event, but she was planned to be killed off, but was reformed by one of the guards on G6, and became a normal character. it was far better for the RP of her person than simply being ended.

[Poruku]

I do think having the option to make villain chars is good in theory, but the issue is that antagonists sometimes blur the line between villain and just a character being played in a way that makes sense.

Despite the issues, I would vouch for it. If a char has a change of heart etc, measures could be taken to remove the villain status, and it should be possible to give it to existing chars.

I don't personally play "evil" characters generally. My antagonists usually just have certain ideologies that differ from the norm and people's wellbeing might happen to be in the way of greater goods. And while straight up evil chars can be cool as a story element, I don't think it should be such a cut and dry thing. Make it a flexible rule that eventmins can apply

[FaeLenx]

The amount of people who have outright told me 'this rule isn't enforced' and thus are lowkey admitting to breaking it implies that the rule is actually not enforced.

I'd rather the rules either be enforced or removed.

Making a build-a-bear villain system is harmful to RP and also just kinda incentivizes cheap drama. I would rather it be easier to level something up than making it necessary to create an entire outside system to bootstrap yourself into the combat side of things.

[Neus]

There is absolutely no justification for removing it. The rule is enforced and anyone found breaking it runs the risk of getting everyone involved temporarily banned and their items stripped. Considering this is a roleplaying game, removing a point of interaction that would spawn roleplay, as well as a rule set about to enforce the idea that things your character has should be earned IC, either through their own playtime or from RP with others, is likely not going to happen.

[Poruku]

That's fair, thanks for the response Dev. I would argue that most mechanical things you gain are obtained through grinding, not roleplay, and the times where you do get things through rp are very brief moments of bare minimum interaction. Crafters are an exception to this because it adds a layer to the setting and some chars, and sometimes fosters good rp. I understand why the rule is there, I just find that it's not worth it as time spent grinding it time that could be spent roleplaying. In a sense, you could argue that allowing transfer of murai at least would save grinding time and thus increase the amount of roleplay that happens more than forbidding it does.

That being said, I realize it's not something that will change. It's a rule that is important to to game health for a different kind of player than myself, and that's fine.