[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.

[Snake]

The power of death is terribly bad in the wrong hands, that's why this rule exists, and why GMs are the exception. (To make sure really stupid ways to avoid death are not possible, to an extent)

RP in SL2 should be a cooperation between two people, not a competition. I think this is the idea behind it? So as long as two people are fine, everything runs smooth.

[Sawrock]

The world is a giant web of interaction. Eventually, you'll be forced to roleplay with someone you don't quite agree with, and they may withhold death permissions, regardless of the plot or story. I'm on Sarin's side here with this one.

[Snake]

Still doesn't justify getting your character killed off by someone who repurposes their own for an small half-baked event and run out of it without consequences.
Or worse, the worse case of death is one you can't even react to. Being sniped from afar, from someone using a sniper rifle from Dormeho towards Cellsvich or something absurd like that. Or getting killed while you are offline, and your character is ICly sleeping or doing something else, or whatever just because 'Mister Stabbitybutt' did it and you can't say no to it.

Man, Death is only fun for one of the parties when it's not consented, and at this point everybody already got used to this rule, so why prod it? It's no use trying to change it, because that rule has a role. It suffocates villain RP? Why bother then.

If anything, I'd even snatch the rights of inflicting death from the Guard Force's hands. Getting chopped on the neck just because you did scream 10 times in a row in Cellsvich, and got charged by 'Disturbing the Peace' when nobody is around... really, really sucks.

[Sarinpa1]

I've talked with Sly and GMs do not have the authority to force death upon you.
To discuss why the rule is in place is not the point of the topic, nor does it seem like you've read it properly.
Proposed ADDITIONto the rule was -- For consent of both parties before combat being something you cannot back out of.

It doesn't negate the rule, it adds a clause for when "Okay stranger, I'm intending to inflict death upon thee, as you'll be able to as well. Do you agree?"

"My good sir, I agree to thyne terms. Let us duel and may the best prevail!"

Let's call them Person 1 and Person 2. Person 2 is a dickwad.

Person 1 loses. For they've previously agreed for the match to be a deathmatch, they have enough integrity to let their character die.
Person 2 loses. Oh no, their pvp skeelz were shit. They didn't account for this. "Lol chang my mind, i survive, eat a dick ))) "

Situation number two. One of the people isn't okay with their character dying. They say so beforehand, if asked by the other, so both characters are magicaly safe from death.

We're often forced to interact with people that take the game not as seriously as we do, or take it more seriously. This would save up time, would prevent heavy inconsistencies in roleplay, when a character WOULD kill someone for X reason, but the other person doesn't want to die. That's why this "ingrained" rule could use an addition. Why would I spend hours trying to kill someone when they'll just lolsurvive, get my character jailed for attempted murder, and have absolutely no reward, since they'll walk it off.
I hoped I was very clear.

Appearantely not.

I ask that this topic is not further derailed.

[Shujin]

I actually expected that this "Rule" goes without saying.
If you agree before hand to get yourself in a dangerous situation and you are warned OOCly that this has concequnces on your character (Not only death.) changing your mind suddenly is just a dick move. I honestly expected that GMs would prevent that.

So, yop. +1? I think this is a common sense thing.

[Snake]

Wait wait wait, chotto matte kudasai weeb-desu. The 'exploiting the death rule' part? Ah, sure. I've probably misread.

Tbf I've never seen a situation like that but... Isn't that common sense? If you're agreeing with a lethal fight you should carry on with the terms to the bone. If anything, any situation like this should be (again) brought to a GM. The death rule is a godmod to prevent godmod, but it doesn't stop being godmodding by itself when used poorly.

[Sarinpa1]

The problem is that the GMs currently do not have the authority to impose this.
My suggestion is to give that to their hands.

I've had it happen two times so far, since I've learned to rather not involve myself with people I expect to chicken-out of death the moment they don't feel like it. Definetly would be more frequent otherwise. Once was before guards were a thing, once when guards were a thing. And it got me into real trouble IC. Without...as said, the reward, yes.

So this comes from experience. Common sense perhaps, but yes.

[Grandpa]

I feel like it's more godmodding to have your character survive what should have clearly killed them. This rule needs changed or removed, either will work well enough most likely.

[Chaos]

The problem is that the GMs currently do not have the authority to impose this.

GMs do not have the authority to cram death down someone's throat without good reason/prior warning. This is why you don't see so many people getting executed by the Empire.

GMs do have the authority to smack someone if they try to exploit the 'you can't force death' rule. We have already established that the rule is not meant to cover people from reprisal, and I honestly don't see why people think that isn't the case.

If we need to change the rule, just add on:

#a. On the other hand, you are expected to honor agreements or situations that you intentionally accepted. While we encourage discussion if something happens, trying to use this rule to cheat your way out of consequences is not allowed.

I feel like it's more godmodding to have your character survive what should have clearly killed them. This rule needs changed or removed, either will work well enough most likely.

I feel like it's even more godmodding/metagaming to kill a character and not give their player a chance to even say something about it. Especially when you can exploit the meta and turn a character into 'let's kill off characters i don't like'.