[Autumn]

My take on the rule has always been to respect it no matter what, however I am mostly disappointed in a lot of members of the community that refuse to use common sense when their character is in these situations, I try to leave it up to the player of that character to really think "Hey I might be in a messed up situation, if I OOCly want my character to stay around, I should stop", but unfortunately that does not happen as evidenced when bounty hunters went to Law's End to hunt Bloeden and his gang (I was there), a powerful group in it's own right, and every time we triumphed, it was only once out of the many where we ended up killing somebody outright, I felt as if that was quite unfair to us out there.

However I do not argue against the death permissions rule much simply because I get that some characters want to remain casual, and stay away from junk that'd otherwise make them un-fun to play, or just flat out kill them, this is really just because I try to RP with both of these groups of people.

I am not opposed to a system in where death permissions are more on the line, however it should remain up to the player most of the time, I would be more inclined for that the line of "You can't kill this character" and "You can kill this character" to be more governed by GMs, as much as I hate to tack it on like that, using common sense for death permissions is not something that a surprising majority do here and I am severely disappointed, as mentioned before where fourteen people all went after Bloeden, got their asses kicked, and only 1 ended up dying, even though we were in a position to kill, at least half, if not 3/4 of them.

I'll re-iterate, a common sense rule is what -should- be in effect, though I don't know if that's doable anymore due to the playerbase rising.

[Lolzytripd]

my fix

both sides agree that death is possible, the loser of the fight is sent to pinks funhouse to reset their character (they get to keep their items) then get a token that would level them back up to their former level when they leave.

[Egil]

So yeah. Just my two cents about the issues I see with your post. I know you said it's a rough draft and all, so I'm not knocking your efforts or motivations.

It's all good. I can see where you're coming from as well, and I definitely didn't realize that lichdom was something that cannot be forced. That's my bad.

As for GM intervention, mostly when a disagreement happens to IC circumstance, you'd call in a GM anyway. And I feel like most of the time this kind of thing gets away with it, it's because GMs aren't available at the time.

I find that, actually, a good chunk of the time, a GM is called and they allow the victim to negate any consequence from befalling their character solely because of this invisible rule of 'You can't force death on a character' laid out by Dev that has been interpreted to then also apply to less serious forms of consequence, regardless of how deserved these actions are.

TL;DR - "Roleplaying isn't a contest." Please communicate better with each other to avoid these disagreements, make your intent known beforehand and strike a fair deal for those involved.

If people can't be reasoned with, then that's when you call it off or if it's already happened, that's when GM intervention is required.

Unless the GMs intend on solving these disagreements instead of always siding with the victim, as has occurred in the past, then I am not confident that your solution will alleviate this issue, Sly.

Intent to kill must be expressed beforehand. If player A intends to kill player B and player B does not agree to a fight to the death (they forfeit their right to refuse if they've done any of the previous five things), then player B also cannot attempt force death on player A. Any of these rules can be made flexible with the prior consent of both parties, but without that consent you are where you are. If you've committed murder and the other person isn't giving prior agreement to your safety, you can't hide behind the "but it's my character" shield.

This is a viable solution to me, but I do not think it would be as readily enforceable as the draft I wrote up. That might just be me, though.

I'll re-iterate, a common sense rule is what -should- be in effect, though I don't know if that's doable anymore due to the playerbase rising.

If the status-quo doesn't work anymore, then we need change.

both sides agree that death is possible, the loser of the fight is sent to pinks funhouse to reset their character (they get to keep their items) then get a token that would level them back up to their former level when they leave.

I am not going to make a contract with every player for every individual interaction. That isn't efficient or reasonable.

[Slydria]

I find that, actually, a good chunk of the time, a GM is called and they allow the victim to negate any consequence from befalling their character solely because of this invisible rule of 'You can't force death on a character' laid out by Dev that has been interpreted to then also apply to less serious forms of consequence, regardless of how deserved these actions are.

While Dev has plainly stated players and GMs cannot force death on a character (the only current exception is guard executions), there is no hard rule for other things.

Though I can see GMs not allowing you to force certain other things, for example like stealing valuable items from players or forcing uncomfortable things like sexual assault (but that last example is probably not a good one because if you're roleplaying that kind of thing, you're likely breaking the rules anyway.)

That said, I'm curious as to what the situations you're referring to are specifically. I have a feeling there's more to this than what you're laying out.

Unless the GMs intend on solving these disagreements instead of always siding with the victim, as has occurred in the past, then I am not confident that your solution will alleviate this issue, Sly.

The nice thing about what I'm suggesting is it's something we can start doing immediately. We can already start talking about this in a fair way. We can be upfront with our intent and how we want these things to go down.

However, no system changing solution will work if Dev insists on a hard ruling against death permissions. You're going to have to accept that.

And regardless of what solution is taken, it's not as simple as to just change the rules. You should work to change how the players handle these situations themselves too, otherwise we're just going to have a bunch of rule breakers.


That said, I like what Zaki has said about this. I agree with the notion that if you're getting into risky situations, there should be risk to it and cannot just hide under the veil of a hard rule.

[Chaos]

I really don't see the necessity to instate a rule where you are given clear grounds to force X on someone, with or without conditions. Most of this should be common sense, and grounds for players to work things out. When those fail? That's what you get a GM for.

I'm going to parrot Sly's TL;DR here: "Roleplaying is not a contest." There really shouldn't be so much fighting and hard ruling over something like this. If the community is this untrustworthy, we should sooner look at weeding out the people who make the game look like a pissing contest, rather than giving people who will metagame to one-up each other the ability to murder other characters.

That being said, I'm not too opposed to an adjustment to the rule, though if it happens, I agree with Slydria that we'll have to change more than just a rule to make this work for the better.

[Neus]

The main reason the rule exists is to prevent abuse cases. It's not there to protect anyone from reprisal for things they've done, but we all know if it weren't there, character death would be handed out by fellow PCs too liberally. Ideally this sort of thing should be handled maturely between people, because that's what good RP is all about. Making it more automated would be difficult especially when we consider the fact that sometimes the results of battles are decided by things it shouldn't be, for example, undiscovered bugs, etc.

I have more thoughts on this, but I can't really make a big long post at the moment, so I'll just say I am open to the possibility of this sort of 'aggressor/revenge' RP more approachable through GMs, if it's desired.

[Vyktoryah]

As someone who has played antagonists on other games, I feel rather disgusted to see that I cannot even be an antagonist on SL2.

The only way to antagonize to to antagonize NPCs, for the most part. The ruling where you need permission for any sort of consequence to your character only ruins the roleplay experience for antagonists. You're there to push people to do something, you're there because you want to cause conflict. You're not there to beat people up, then let them go.

SL2's antagonism comes off as a Saturday Morning Cartoon, where even if you win, somehow the one you antagonized lives. It gives people plot-armor and overall destroys progression. It is forcing Antagonists TO CHANGE THEIR IC based on someone's OOC wants to keep their character alive.

Honestly, I think the rule should be removed GLOBALLY. But if someone is at risk of losing their character, or their character is at risk of being violated in a way they think is unfitting to the actions prior (maiming, kidnapping, stealing, etc) They are free to contact any of the staff to sort out the issue before it becomes canonical. Sure this may make some character's enter what is known in other games as a 'SCENE LOCK' but it would also prevent antagonists from needing to change their IC. Players have the liberty to go 'hey I do not think this is right' and GMs have the right to say yes or no on the situation.

As well, for casuallers? There should be some 'safe zones' even casualers enjoy. In these safe-zones, you are not allowed to kill, maim, steal, kidnap or otherwise antagonize someone beyond KO without their or GM consent.

Cellsvich/

Highest Safezone as it is not only the capital of the strongest empire in the game, but also the newbie zone. Here is where people start the game, and thus if they do not want to have conflict here, they should not be forced into conflict. And even if there is conflict, both PC and NPC guards should be allowed to step in at any moment to help the victim, should the siutation call for it.

Arena/BDP Dungeons

OOC Safezones. If you're here for OOC reasons, say grinding out levels or 10* items, or maybe grinding badges in the arena, you can simply state you are OOC or not roleplaying right now, and others have to accept that, they cannot force you to RP in these areas, due to their uniqueness.

Tannis/Dormeho/Oniga/Lispool/Chaturanga

Medium level safezone, you can't be killed here without GM or your permission, nor an you be seriously maimed. However people can steal from you and kidnap you. However you cannot be killed if kidnapped from these areas unless you consent. An area to go if you are OK with conflict, but not to serious character-risking levels.

Law's End/Coastal Cove/Static Dungeons/Woods Near Cellsvich/Camps/World Map

No Safezones. This means if you are in these areas, you are prone to being attacked by antagonists by any means they feel is appropriate, as long as it follows IC, and would not force a GM to step in and say it is not allowed.(Law's End, if you're a respected member of it's society, you can ask GMs for perhaps, NPC assistance)

Player Housing

The owner of the housing has the right to dictate the level of safety for ALL within it, including their allies/friends/self. Because of this, Player housing, regardless of which village it is in, will have whichever Safezone rating the owner dictates. As some housings are made for more than just houses.

Honestly adding Safe-zones that allows for casuallers to have places they want to hang out, while also making it so people who want to cause conflict have their locations as well, promotes multiple places of RP rather than the same ol' spots depending on what type of RP you are seeking/okay with.

Sure some of my suggestions involve GMs actively reading up on certain characters, especially on more proactive protagonists and antagonists, but shouldn't that be part of the job description anyway? Perhaps add individuals specifically for Roleplay Moderation, who are expected to watch other people's roleplays if they are prone to conflict.

One last thing, what level of harm is expected on win/loss, should also be OOCly stated before any form of conflict starts. However IC actions and words throughout a battle should be able to adjust this accordingly.

ALTERNATIVELY---

Though I do not think it is wise with the player base not being exactly large, is to create a second server that allows more freedoms for conflict and Roleplay, while having another server specifically for they more light-hearted, causal-roleplaying or Gameplay-oriented people.

[Egil]

And regardless of what solution is taken, it's not as simple as to just change the rules. You should work to change how the players handle these situations themselves too, otherwise we're just going to have a bunch of rule breakers.

My experience with talking to people who say 'no' to every kill/abduction/maim/etc attempt, regardless of how valid those attempts are, have always ended with 'it's my character, I can decide their fate'. There's no compromise with these sorts of players. The solution that is most commonly given to me when I bring this up is 'Just do not RP with people do are like that' or, simply, 'Do not RP with bad roleplayers'. I personally feel that that is excessive and an unnecessarily shitty attitude to take when it comes to public roleplay, especially when it isn't just one or two people who have this stance. It's a significant portion of the community.

I think that combining our solutions- a change in the hard rule as well as better moderation of situations/better cooperation amongst players- would achieve what I am aiming for.

The main reason the rule exists is to prevent abuse cases. It's not there to protect anyone from reprisal for things they've done, but we all know if it weren't there, character death would be handed out by fellow PCs too liberally.

I heard that that was a big issue with SL1 and safe zones, and I certainly do not want everyone to be in fear for their character's fate when they aren't doing anything that would warrant something bad happening to their character. I believe that the issue of people hiding behind your hard rule to be immortal and invincible regardless of what they say/do can be alleviated without bringing SL1's issues into SL2.

Ideally this sort of thing should be handled maturely between people, because that's what good RP is all about. Making it more automated would be difficult especially when we consider the fact that sometimes the results of battles are decided by things it shouldn't be, for example, undiscovered bugs, etc.

Sure.

I have more thoughts on this, but I can't really make a big long post at the moment, so I'll just say I am open to the possibility of this sort of 'aggressor/revenge' RP more approachable through GMs, if it's desired.

Well, there was a situation today where a GM (rightfully) sided with those perpetrating an act of violence against another player, so change is already happening. At this point in time, however, death allowances are still a major issue that requires a solution.

... As well, for casuallers? There should be some 'safe zones' even casualers enjoy. In these safe-zones, you are not allowed to kill, maim, steal, kidnap or otherwise antagonize someone beyond KO without their or GM consent...

I never played SL1, but from how it was described to me, this solution is very reminiscent of it. I don't know if the community would be on board with this, and I'm personally in the grey about 'safe zones'. To me, tragedy can strike anywhere at anytime as long as it is within reason (ie not killing a character that just made). That's why I feel that regulations should be applied to the reasons why an action is being done, and not where an action is taking place.

Otherwise, you'll just have people never leaving safe zones.

[Vyktoryah]

Of course safe-zones can have their flaws, like people hiding in them all day. But for those who simply want casual roleplay.. why is it so bad for those types?

The only issue I can see this being abused is if you are antagonizing people weaker than you, and then going into safe-zones to prevent consequences. Of course if someone is intentionally following you to stalk and kill you once you drop out of a safezone, that too, should be something moderated and not allowed.

SL1 did have the issue of 'once you pass the gate you were a free kill' but at the same time, that's what the staff is here for. They are here to moderate the game, and make sure the rules are followed. Killing someone just to kill them and get your sadistic rocks off should be strictlydisallowed, and be an IP-Wide bannable offense.If the players behind Antagonists are responsible, as well as the staff is when it comes to rules like this, I see no problem with adding varying level of safety zones.

Of course doing what other roleplay games have and having a flee-system which can be used pre-fight to prevent confrontation could also help in these situations.

As well to make death perhaps, lighter on some players? Make it so if they took the death gracefully that the next time they make a character on that slot, all Legion Authorings outside the Knowledge(Or at least Deja VU), Transformation and Destinies carry over to the next character. This would make it feel like at least, some of your character progress is retained through the professions and the aspects.

The issue here is that there is a permadeath system, and nothing your former characters do would effect a new character mechanically; so you literally waste everything... it's basically akin to a save-wipe.

It'd be easier for people to accept death, if it wasn't a completely consequencing action OOCly as well as ICly.

[Egil]

I've never seen anyone get forced to delete their save over dying. They just change their appearance, name, and build and then have an entirely new character with all their gear, murai, LEing, etc intact.