[WaifuApple]

Looking at the thread linked by Mega, to be honest it almost seems like that thread was a bunch of humour around the topic - it read as quite funny, actually. So I'm not sure that really demonstrates all that much from me - so I kind of think it weird to bring up? Especially if one is trying to make a point with it. It also feels like talking down when you need to come in and tell people the different stages of disagreement.

Other than that I'm not really going to get too much into this thread itself, beyond saying that a villain story where the end is usually predetermined to be execution via the intense and dramatic hostility of the character's actions is hard to truly get into for the plot itself - it's usually better for the accolades and chance to shine for defeating the big bad then anything else, at least to me.

This is the same for moral villains with reasoning for their actions - it's hard to truly feel the impact when they turn up and bring these moral problems with them, ones that could use more build up, etc - it's hard to sympathise and see how they were driven to this if the problem starts existing with them.

It's hard not to see it in black and white when the problem seems to begin when they do, and end when they do.

[FaeLenx]

With the weirder bits that were more suspect removed, I'll elaborate and expand on what I said before because it's still very true. There are a couple of very important points before the general pros and cons of the whole article.

=-=-=
Mental Illness in Roleplay: Why not to

For people who don't need a lengthy explanation on why making disposable characters whose proposed defining trait is that they're looking excessively murderable and mentally ill, you can just not do it.

For everyone who does, it's below and spoilered because it's a rant.

Starting with the problem of the fact that this is a touchy enough subject to the point that I could find you a dozen articles of why it's not really right to call most disorders 'mental illness' and a dozen more refuting it, the fact of the matter is that your research isn't enough. And when I say you, I mean anyone who is reading this and thinks it might be a good idea to start assigning mental health issues to a character under these contexts. If you want to peruse WebMD for character inspiration, at the very least don't ever assign one of those labels to your character in any notable or public way. For you, it's a neat way to make a disposable villain who will do things we recognize from media depictions of crazy people but with a side of elitism because there was 'research' done. For other people, that's their actual life that is being generally made a mockery of. Yes, when you're making a guide on how to make a character who is transient to the point of being disposable and despised to the point of likely being murdered for it, marking or suggesting the core foundation of what brought them there to be some mental disorder is making a mockery of it.

I've worked close to a decade with or around mental health, and when it's not outright offensive to people I know it's just cringe and exhausting when someone starts playing armchair psychologist in a context like this.

At least when people treat 'crazy' as 'crazy' then it's just Yandere or some fantasy psychosis that doesn't lead to anything. I'd rather have fishmalks than some really uncomfortable 'diagnosis' being played off as if it's a tragedy or otherwise compelling. Do what authors have done from the beginning of time and make any sort of character trait or trope seem fantastical rather than some cruel parody of life to be mocked. Call it a sticky fingered thief rather than a kleptomaniac. Call it an anemic personality rather than chronic depression. The moment you start diagnosing your own character as if you're a doctor, the best result is that you come off as pretentious and uninformed.

=-=-=
Cringe and edgy tone

Onto the bit about lesbians that got removed, being casually toxic is the part of this community that I'd rather isn't immortalized and broadcast to anyone who's looking to enter. It's good to remove it in that case, but any coming late to the discussion should be aware that there were some things being referenced that are no longer in there. To at least one person, this was their first introduction to the sort of discussions held on the forums. The length makes it seem important. The fact that people are complaining about ad hominem as if this is some sort of debate means I need to elaborate more on this topic than I would if someone had just posted something much shorter. It's weird. I don't like it. I don't think it reflects well on the community and I'd rather not have to explain to someone why I'm a part of a community that can readily be defined by it.

=-=-=

Because I said there were good and bad and I've already addressed the awful, here are the cons and pros.[/size]

Pros:
Encouraging communication is never a bad thing.

The character writing tips are good. To the point where all characters should have these ideals, hooks, and compelling reasons to exist. Every character should have ideals that they would never bend on. People just generally do.

Cons:
This guide seeks to put some sort of divide between any usual character and a character with ideals who will come into or cause conflict. The truth of the matter is that every character should have ideals, conflict should be normalized, and the rules and general demeanor of the community need to come together to make this happen. The idea that any character who runs afoul of the law or general consensus of right and wrong needs to be executed the moment they're beat in a 4v4 was something I'd really hoped to avoid with Korvara. This guide doesn't just fail to help that, it actively encourages that trend to continue.

Advice regarding ganking is just rather poorly explained or just handled in a rather unhealthy way. You mention asking others to lower their numbers to match yours. There's no advice to always do the same for others without having to be asked. Lacking any advice on etiquette there, it advises asking for a lot while offering very little in every opportunity. In almost any other roleplay community, giving someone an out is standard practice. There's next to no mention of doing it here unless someone actively expresses discontent or annoyance.

Masturbatory is still the right word for the segment about character archetypes. Even recognizing half of them due to being around long enough, to anyone who hasn't the pictures are almost entirely nonsensical (as only roughly half of them at least look the part described) and therefore detract from the guide's value as informative.

[BoberJones]

i believe as i stated before i stopped playing the ooc involvement of people in ic inhibits a lot of roleplay from happening. it becomes hard to make an engaging antagonist because to be an antagonist you have to antagonize somebody. when ooc is so viciously present antagonistic actions become attacks on a person because the difference between ic and ooc is so thin the only method of being antagonistic is to do something the other would not agree with.

of course, this can be done distastefully and it often is because the hurdle to actually do it is so high with some people its like crafting a dnd session for one person with the strict goal of antagonizing them and providing to be something for their story, however, when the tables are turned the effort is hardly there.

i do have several of these examples that happened in my time playing, but most of them came from playing a man with a god complex. hyper analyzing people, claiming things that weren't true and asking people about their sexual orientation. the first of these things didn't actually net me any anger from people icly if anything people were open to the character hyper-analyzing them because they could just decide to ignore it or laugh at the random I'm a god jest. the 2nd thing the same thing, but the 3rd was like i committed murder to people. I get why it is, but I myself am not an enemy by any means, but some people would outright be petty as a response, ignore me or even vilify me without even asking me if i knew what i was talking about or what it was for. the ic reasoning and justification for the poll was to promote sexual orientation on korvara and to make a correlation between society and sexual orientation.

this somehow (next to being from the sun tribe) was my most antagonistic action, for some people i could get them to get angry, ignore me or claim I was doing something wrong for asking a simple question and wanting to write it down. while i do not actually mind for I had the mentality of jumping over hoops and walking around eggshells to be antagonist ( see the consent bandits ) it is just jarring to try and be that for people. they are able to deny you a scene, deny your validation as a character, ignore you, reject conflict, etc. the options are endless and when you try to give them a good, engaging scene that challenges with ideals, morals, etc. it is as if you stabbed them in the chest irl and watched them bleed.

my first comment was because somebody linked this to me, and so i continued to read the comments made.
to be honest with you as somebody new who tried to play it is hard to be an antagonist.
for 1 if u arent sawrock or don't have the 'sawrock' card u literally will almost never be accepted as one, people hail the ground he walks on and i bet it is for good reason.
this, however, does not mean people can't make in-depth villains with a reason as to why they do it, with stories, etc. sawrock just seems okay with letting his deaths come and making story in general.

some people i interacted with treated me like a stepping stone in their story as if my character didn't matter and me dying would just be a *shrugs* you were just part of my story to provide me with development. somebody even implied this to me on the forum before. regardless i think being an antag on sl2 is a big big task and is draining. it is somewhat easier when you are known or respected, etc, no offense to dev, but people are a bit more lenient given he's the owner. no offense to sawrock either, he's done a lot to get his reputation, but when the community just doesn't let somebody be an antagonist unless they are sawrock or sawrock adjacent or giving them exactly what they want, its nigh-impossible to do.

now i vanish back into obscurity

[Soul_Hacker]

Sharing my viewpoint on the messy subject of antagonism and conflict is something I've done a few times before, and I suppose now that I'm on the 'good' side of the law, I'm going to share it again. First and foremost though, the way some (not all!) people are genuinely attacking Polk for this is downright horrendous. If you have problems with the guide, that's fine! There's no need to attack the person who's making it, calling their characters shallow, their writing subpar- it's unnecessary, hurtful, and doesn't fuel any real discussion on the topic at hand. If you've a problem with the way someone acts or the way their characters are made, I'm sure most would greatly appreciate being talked to in private on the matter, rather than being 'called out' on a forum post they put together in an attempt to help people.

While I understand there was some 'antagonistic' wording to the post that has since been removed, such as the comments regarding lesbians; and the very touchy subject of mental illness, honing in on these points is to ignore the rest of the (very big) post. Again, not saying everyone's done this, some people have posted their responses to the post in full, and laid them out well. Wish there was more of that, and less of. . .everything else.

Ganking is a contentious topic in the community, that much is more than clear. People dislike feeling as if they're forced into a situation beyond their control; and due to the relationship they feel with their character, the humiliation of being defeated can sting. While it is a 'good way' for your antag to grow in notoriety, it's a fact you'll just have to face that some people won't be happy with you for pursuing this route- but, on the other hand, if you're simply trying to grow in notoriety by- say, attacking NPCs, killing NPCs, killing characters off people wished to not play anymore in private- people will often deride you all the same.

With the game and community the way it is, there's no real definitive way out of this catch-22. You attack active players, and many will consider your assaults frivolous, unwarranted, bullying- etc. You attack inactive players or NPCs, and people will deride your efforts for attention, and oft. ignore it is happening altogether. While assault isn't the only way to cause conflict- it's certainly the one the game's systems support the most. You cannot truly 'vandalize' places to any real IC affect without help from a GM/Eventmin, you cannot 'steal' from another player without their consent (or a fight!), and trying to be an antagonist simply by the way your character speaks or acts is a lovely way to get labeled as part of the 'peanut gallery', and, again, ignored.

Eventmins and GMs would seem to be the common solution then, be it seeking permission from them to party with yourself and rile up trouble, or be it making an event, or chain of events- in which your antagonism flourishes, the center of attention. Sadly, this leaves many people out of the loop as well- those in unconventional timezones, those unable to attend, those who aren't prepared to combat event mobs. RP then, maybe. An RP antagonist (sadly) also seems equally difficult to pull off- if you're setting up strict one on one RP's with people, then the folks outside this sphere can often feel helpless, seeing their friends assailed by an invisible threat they can seemingly do nothing about, unless they schedule with you, and play by your rules- it leaves the 'heroes' feeling useless, and the 'villains' untouchable, yet also not a true threat.

I suppose this has been a lot of rambling to simply say that- if there is a good 'solution' to antagonism in SL2, I haven't quite seen it. Every avenue comes with tradeoffs, every risk the antagonists take will be punished to a severe degree, and if they don't take risks- the protaganists will feel as if they can't do anything at all about the situation at hand. It's come to a peak in Korvara, due to the 'always-IC' nature, and the promise of a world changed by player action. Without antagonists, the game will die out- but, despite that, the game isn't too friendly towards them.

I do hope that people who have played this game for longer than me are able to come up with a solution for the matter nonetheless, as I've greatly enjoyed my time in Korvara, despite the many hiccups along the way, and would hate to see it die out, or regress to stagnation.

[Shujin]

Oh boy, imagine beating up on someone who genuinely tries to break the mold for people and give them some change of pace at his own expense.

While my view of "good villains" is different as well I can see the different notions of it and what is simply more suited for SL2 environment, cause its mechanics without a doubt HIGHLY influence how villains are made and played.

SL2 in general, is in my opinion simply not a great place for "Good villains". Imagine a villain who ticks all the boxes. He is subtle, unassuming maybe, building it up over many many months maybe even years, following a specific goal.
99% of the playerbase would never even know they were a villain, maybe even describe them as shallow cause they never get to see the actual planning behind it or the RPs that happen, cause they are smart and subtle, so everyone would actually find them boring, cause they are TOO good. Too smart or whatever.
That doesn't work in SL2 very well. Also feels from a playing perspective extremely unrewarding for the most part cause you only get some interesting Organic RPs once in a millenia and you do not TRUELY have anything you acheive in the time aside from "RP achievements" that again, do not matter to like 99% of the playerbase. Thats a SL2 system problem, mainly, I believe. Its overall just still a bit to stiff imo. (If you have it all planned out with a couple of friends thats a different story of course, but I wouldn't call that organic. Also mostly just matters for that group then.)
A good villian who never truely achieves anything. "Event-Villians" have the advantage of GM powers on their side, which makes that work out better for them, but as a normal player? You do not really have the liberty to do such in a meaningful way.

The other option is of course the more open Villian attempt, that has very basic motivations that are simply set within their character (which is described in the guide and Sawrock, polk, myself and most that play villains usually play alot.) These are ALOT more fun to play as or against cause things HAPPEN. You do not have to worry about longterm subtle moves (which by the way, get usually metagamed anyway and people ruin it that way.) Which of course comes at the expense of actually meaningful characters as apple says...Hard to get invested into mass-produced characters (also goes for good characters too, by the way.). Also a side product of the Games systems and lack of a longterm Progression system and a too easy way to repurpose characters with mechanically absolutely no consequences.
These villains are most certainly better fit to lift up "hero" characters who manage to chase them down. I'd probably call them more "Fodder" villains. Have a very limited lifespan but atleast people can actually interact with them, versus the mysterious smart villain. However it IS more fun to play them, as they actually reach much more in a way shorter time then the "good villian" and is therefore more engaging to play.

Playing GOOD villains is difficult. SL2s general system does not really support that either, making it even more of a hassle. In the end a good "villain" story is however written in cooperation with good protagonists, Protagonists who keep cutting certain things short are just supporting the "Recycling" process which makes it harder to get to know those villains and their motivations. But finding the balance between that is just veeeery difficult, cause at some point it just makes no sense for the "heroes" to just let them go either without making it feel unrewarding to even engage in this.

Overall, the guide is certainly way too long. It has however a few VERY important points that people SHOULD follow. Even if its not always easy.
Communication, OOC Fairness and consent are important to make stuff feel fun.
Which I say, who doesn't trust people in this community and therefore dislikes communicating out of fear that it gets metagamed. Something everyone needs to kinda get used to.

Long story short:
Playing a Villain much as a Hero is a preference case. No real right or wrong answer. Take form the guide what you want or nothing at all.
how you play with and treat your fellow players however is not a preference, and toxic tribalism will always be bad for the game. Its way to present in SL2 and needs to get toned down alot.
In the end I think what we need is LESS pvp exclusive forms of antagonism, and more RP focused but thats ultimately up to dev.

So pretty much agree with Soul above here.

[Poruku]

Back after a small break from sl2, I have been pushing back responding to this thread, but I'll try to give my response to some things here.

I feel like ganking especially for people who are looking to get into antagonist characters with no real prior reputation for it is a bit more detrimental than beneficial.

I think it's a necessary evil in SL2. We have very limited options, despite the fact many people will say things like "we need more rp antags, we need more subtle antags" etc. It's not only difficult, it also means most people just won't know about you and not much will happen. I'd love to see a guide on how to make a RP-only antag because I haven't figured out a good formula yet besides being a general annoyance. Any RP-focused antag will inevitably need a lot of build up, and that runs the risk of easily losing all your progress, getting found out or metagamed, not reaching enough people or being just dismissed and ignored, like shujin said.

And to be clear, most of my ganks are scheduled. However, I will be more vocal about giving people an out in the future. I added more information about etiquette and keeping things fun in the guide.

For people who don't need a lengthy explanation on why making disposable characters whose proposed defining trait is that they're looking excessively murderable and mentally ill, you can just not do it.

This guide seeks to put some sort of divide between any usual character and a character with ideals who will come into or cause conflict.

Advice regarding ganking is just rather poorly explained or just handled in a rather unhealthy way. You mention asking others to lower their numbers to match yours. There's no advice to always do the same for others without having to be asked.

Masturbatory is still the right word for the segment about character archetypes.

1: You make a solid point. Though I have to disagree with a few things.
First of all, I think fantasy madness is just as if not more offensive to people with actual disorders because it cheapens the idea of mental health. Countless times I've heard people talk about legitimately interesting characters (not in SL2, in other media) as just crazy. Or hell, think of all the memes about mental illnesses like schizophrenia. How is me doing research more harmful than using insanity as a weird plot point? To clarify, not a single time in my SL2 life did I make any mention of mental illness in the actual game. And usually, I think about a character I want to make first of all, and then try to do research to make it more realistic. I am sorry if you think that's offensive but I'd much rather address it than just sweep it under the rug. It's something important to me, having dealt with many people who struggle with disorders in my life. I believe roleplaying characters that are well developed and share those issues allows me to better understand these people. That's part of why roleplay is so important to me, so that part will stay and I will continue exploring this territory.

2: This is the first line of part 0 of the guide:
"Being an antagonist is not a black and white concept. I use the term because it's widely recognized, but the line between a normal character and an antagonist can and should be blurry. You don't need to "be an antagonist" to shake things up, create conflict, or oppose other people."

3: I'll add that. It's something I've done in the past and I think it's an essential part of ganking as a group! You should never outnumber someone in a gank.

4: I just put that chart there because it's funny. It's literally a reference to a meme and I don't feel like going into "popular media" characters to get examples. I think the explanations are good enough. I'm going to keep the chart there because it's funny to me personally.

I suppose this has been a lot of rambling to simply say that- if there is a good 'solution' to antagonism in SL2, I haven't quite seen it. Every avenue comes with tradeoffs, every risk the antagonists take will be punished to a severe degree, and if they don't take risks- the protaganists will feel as if they can't do anything at all about the situation at hand.

This is exactly my sentiment. My guide isn't meant to be an end-all be-all solution to the perfect antagonist. I don't have it all figured out, although I realize the guide comes on strong. This is simply what I've found works for what we have.

SL2 antagonism is far from perfect. In fact, it sucks. But I am not going to stop, because despite the sea of conflicting views and issues and shit being flung at me, it's still something I love doing and I love this game. And I don't want to leave it stagnant, even if it may put me at odds with some people who don't enjoy my antags.

[FaeLenx]

this somehow (next to being from the sun tribe) was my most antagonistic action, for some people i could get them to get angry, ignore me or claim I was doing something wrong for asking a simple question and wanting to write it down. while i do not actually mind for I had the mentality of jumping over hoops and walking around eggshells to be antagonist ( see the consent bandits ) it is just jarring to try and be that for people. they are able to deny you a scene, deny your validation as a character, ignore you, reject conflict, etc. the options are endless and when you try to give them a good, engaging scene that challenges with ideals, morals, etc. it is as if you stabbed them in the chest irl and watched them bleed.

A couple points here.

1: What sort of reaction are you looking for with the question you asked? Like, reasonably what is the fulfilling end to roleplay that you're looking for with that character angle and that take on being some sort of counter-force to other people? If you were to ask that to any random stranger in another setting, do you think that their reaction would be much different? What if you were asking in another community of some sort where sexual themes are generally taboo like here? It just sounds like you were asking a generally taboo question out of nowhere to people who had no reason to answer you and are acting in mock surprise when they are confused and angry about it.

2: And the consent bandits are generally a bad example of acting around rules. One of their founding members said they did it because they felt the rules were garbage. To sit around on a game you hate to try and make a statement about why you hate it seems weird to me. I thought it was a fun in joke that the community was all around and about since it is a real fun premise, but they corrected me on it in that thread.

Again, not saying everyone's done this, some people have posted their responses to the post in full, and laid them out well. Wish there was more of that, and less of. . .everything else.

No it's not. You can have a problem with one specific part of something, say nothing about the rest of it, and you are perfectly fine with having a problem with one specific part of something. Nobody is obligated to layer a statement with 5 broad 'okay but the thing you said here was good, and here was good...' before getting to the only relevant point you have to make. The weird chart someone threw out about constructive points in argument was hilariously enough defeated by its own use considering it was there to argue that the tone of comments made to criticize were wrong and therefore those comments were wrong for even existing without, as it stated as a golden rule, addressing the actual point of argument that was being proposed.

People can have opinions.

With the game and community the way it is, there's no real definitive way out of this catch-22. You attack active players, and many will consider your assaults frivolous, unwarranted, bullying- etc. You attack inactive players or NPCs, and people will deride your efforts for attention, and oft. ignore it is happening altogether. While assault isn't the only way to cause conflict- it's certainly the one the game's systems support the most. You cannot truly 'vandalize' places to any real IC affect without help from a GM/Eventmin, you cannot 'steal' from another player without their consent (or a fight!), and trying to be an antagonist simply by the way your character speaks or acts is a lovely way to get labeled as part of the 'peanut gallery', and, again, ignored.

The thing is, I just don't think you're right about the first part or that any of the last bit is any actual problem.

On attacking people: The only accusations I've seen about these sorts of conflicts being frivolous or bullying generally come when someone has interacted with more than one character from the same player who attack either the same character or more than one character from the same player. In these cases, it usually boils down to the problem of the relatively small community and the fact that people who play one character who is willing to fight someone are usually willing to play a second in reasonably quick succession and there being few spheres of players who are around reasonably often enough to attack. If those sorts of comments are levelled at someone, it's a sign to maybe take a break with that sort of problem causing or at least in that general geographic location. And attacking inactive people is generally worth getting ignored. Those people weren't around or doing anything to begin with. I only vaguely know of this happening but if your complaint is that nobody responded to it then I would ask who they were supposed to respond to.

On consent: Just ask. If the person wants to roleplay with you and you want to roleplay with the person then they will say yes. If they don't and you for some reason still want to roleplay with that person, reflect on why you feel you should be allowed to. Is it for them? I don't understand this odd sentiment everyone seems to have about conflict and consent. Anyone worth being around is usually open to having something happen to or against their character. If you feel like they don't like you in general then I would again ask why you feel you should be allowed to do anything to their character.

Protagonists who keep cutting certain things short are just supporting the "Recycling" process which makes it harder to get to know those villains and their motivations. But finding the balance between that is just veeeery difficult, cause at some point it just makes no sense for the "heroes" to just let them go either without making it feel unrewarding to even engage in this.

Well, the thing there is that there are rules for this that should be getting followed but maybe aren't? They're pretty damn good for cutting down on the amount of 'cutting down' happens. 

https://neus-projects.net/wiki/index.php...lict_Rules

Specifically about forced danger level.

How does this work if the 'roleplay doesn't make sense?' Well, you make it make sense. There's a prison escape through extreme luck or happenstance. The lack of complication and clutter in the roleplay environment doesn't mean that these things don't exist and aren't possible. Some guy broke out of some county jail by turning around when a guard walked by and legging it through the door. Nobody noticed until he was well out of the building. Add in other fantastical escapes and you might be onto something fun.

The 24 hour long capture timer shouldn't be 'You have to get someone out of jail in this time.' It should be 'how long does it take before I can escape?' I haven't seen a situation like this where people have asked about getting out of jail in that timeframe and been told no. Usually, they're over accommodating and generally want to recycle their character to the next one as soon as possible because getting caught once kinda ended however they felt about their character. That's happened no less than 3 times that I've seen from cases where I've been directly involved in.

[Shujin]

The rules, and how things play and feel, are entirely different beasts. Besides, I haven't really seen the rules being all that much enforced if we look at cases like Schaffung who has been literally imprisoned for OOC months.
But you also see people rather repurpose the character instead of going through "one day jail" (which usually is not that) because RP logic feels pretty iffy if people HAVE to let you go. Its the "no consequences make Timmy dull boy"-thing, this goes both ways. People that capture them get fed up they have to do it over and over again, and the people getting captured are just like "At some point, my character should either be executed or he would learn...Or be locked up for good". besides it's difficult to RP with a character that has ANY sort of mark on them as most people flat-out nazi-deny interactions with you making it just more convenient to be someone else.
Not saying that this is good or bad. Its just how it is and the way the game supports most mechanically and with the communities Rp mentality. Just how "Fodder-Villains" kinda function or do not function.

While yes you can just claim these things a few times, but after a couple of times where generic villain beta 2 was captured and fantastically escapes, people will most certainly be fed up about it and it will feel like a bad joke, which isn't fun for either side. We also have a lot of people that wouldn't allow that for various reasons. This isn't necessarily wrong either, Cause as a hero if you can not actually take down the bad guys, why bother right? just saying its part of why recycling happens SO much. Again, finding the balance is hard.

SL2 is a PVP game that tries to be an RP. SL2 had this identity crisis for a long while now, which is mostly because a lot of vocal people simply enjoy the PVP and want it to be balanced. But alot of actual RP mechanics are therefore pretty underdeveloped.
SL2 allows you to mass-produce characters and mechanically max them easily in 3 days, some people can do it faster.
Death has no mechanical consequences, making it very easy to just jump in with a new character at the exact same powerlevel. This can be used and has been used in the past for producing an endless slew of faceless villains AND heroes and I personally hate that. People just recycle untill they win and then that character is usually just repurposed again into something else a week later.
People see the progression system nowadays as a hurdle to RP, not a part of it and want it removed or made even more obsolete. And I can fully understand that sentiment. Its so easy to do that it might as well not exist.
This all just adds to the way how people play certain characters, cause its always just a "Eh, I can just repurpose real quick, or regrind in 2 days, I just die here!" which is kinda sad from a RP perspective and takes alot of impact away, cause people let go of said characters way to easily.
It is disheartening, but characters get created with that mindset from the get go and are played way more risky cause there is no real consequence. Go bright, die quick, prepare your next character you wanna repurpose this one into ion this "life", die in some random event.

Of course not everyone does it, and many many people extremely value their character's RP and Story and will be more than just careful.  I just think the way antagonism works in SL2, is very very much attached to the way the games RP/Progression system works. And I will stand by it, but I think the RP would drastically improve if more time has to go into a single character and if consequences for dying were alot harsher. It might slow down new characters, but people will think twice and thrice on how they want to play them and the characters will stay around much longer, giving alot more time for other people to get to know them and get attached to them or get to properly hate them. It will also increase a persons active time on said character, making them feel less shallow by default cause you are just on that character more. Even the best roleplays appear as Shallow at times on characters cause they just spread their time to thin on many different alts.
There are GOOD reasons why pretty much every RP game out there does NOT allow Alts on a person who plays a Leading figure role, or one tops.

The thing is, I just don't think you're right about the first part or that any of the last bit is any actual problem.

On attacking people: The only accusations I've seen about these sorts of conflicts being frivolous or bullying generally come when someone has interacted with more than one character from the same player who attack either the same character or more than one character from the same player. In these cases, it usually boils down to the problem of the relatively small community and the fact that people who play one character who is willing to fight someone are usually willing to play a second in reasonably quick succession and there being few spheres of players who are around reasonably often enough to attack. If those sorts of comments are levelled at someone, it's a sign to maybe take a break with that sort of problem causing or at least in that general geographic location. And attacking inactive people is generally worth getting ignored. Those people weren't around or doing anything to begin with. I only vaguely know of this happening but if your complaint is that nobody responded to it then I would ask who they were supposed to respond to.

On consent: Just ask. If the person wants to roleplay with you and you want to roleplay with the person then they will say yes. If they don't and you for some reason still want to roleplay with that person, reflect on why you feel you should be allowed to. Is it for them? I don't understand this odd sentiment everyone seems to have about conflict and consent. Anyone worth being around is usually open to having something happen to or against their character. If you feel like they don't like you in general then I would again ask why you feel you should be allowed to do anything to their character.

This might be your opinion, but from personal experience.. I think Soul is more than just a little right. I find it good that you have that perspective because its way more friendly overall, but the reality is that there are many people here that take ANY form of IC antagonism Personal OOCly. And not just a little.
Its not even about assaults. People will then start to actually go on a rampage OOCly, begin to Metagame, start witchhunts over discord, lie etc.

Some People do NOT take lightly to the prospect that someone in an RP game could have something against them, or targets them for one reason or another, even if its 100% justified with RP.
This of course also translates to how such things are received. I do not know if you ever played a Bandit type of character or something, or have seen how Saw usually handles these things...But very often, people even at the first sign of it at that character get very offended OOCly. Will begrudgingly say "Yeah fine! Rp is RP!", and throw snippy and snarky comments at the "offenders" OOCly and ICly during the whole thing. Making it feel super awkward on the "offenders" side cause...Believe it or not, they usually do it to provide OTHERS with a good time and not elevate themselves. Or well, have a scene thats fun on either side. Things like that? Are fun for neither.
People also like hiding behind rules, which is the most fun thing in a RP scene and I really think needs to be looked at, even though I get why it is the way it is.
People are immortal, because they can just OOCly say "Nah only danger level 1!". Their character ICly though? Will be snappy, make jokes, shrug their shoulders, or be in absolutely no peril at all and ignore all you do. Sure you could get an admin to handle this and force raise the level but...They are neither always there nor do you as a player think the need to do so, because that person clearly doesn't care about that roleplay. Or they do, but only so they can make fun of the other side, while being protected by rules. And having to build a whole case for the admins to just slightly raise the danger level they probably shrug off aswell, is not worth it. Nor is it fun.


So nah, people will give consent, and then be excuse my wording be bitches about it, or it will generally be treated as a joke...Which in part I get OOCly given how Fodder Villains are really just...Kind of a joke. But hey, its still better that pure staleness, imo. And any other form of Villains just do not work. Maybe in a leader position, but outside of that? tough luck.

In a perfect world you would probably be right, but I at least have made different expereinces.

[FaeLenx]

People see the progression system nowadays as a hurdle to RP, not a part of it and want it removed or made even more obsolete. And I can fully understand that sentiment. Its so easy to do that it might as well not exist.
This all just adds to the way how people play certain characters, cause its always just a "Eh, I can just repurpose real quick, or regrind in 2 days, I just die here!" which is kinda sad from a RP perspective and takes alot of impact away, cause people let go of said characters way to easily.

Consider the parallels this game would have if character creation was shorter. Forum RP, freeform happening in or outside of a video game platform, tabletop (because if your character dies on most tables, you recycle a new one onto it), or any other area where grind isn't a part of a mandatory RP journey. While there are some other gamified examples of adding a mandatory grind to a roleplay experience whether that is through time gating or some other means, they rarely ever work through MMO mechanics like SL2 has. 

I don't really consider a character's level very relevant to RP. And I like the PVP in this game. It was one of the most enjoyable things in the G6 when everything else was quiet. I don't really think it's important to the story being told because quite frankly most people who write write irrelevant to their character.

If someone throws their character away in a purposeful anti-climax in a scene personal to me, I generally just don't want to interact with that writer anymore. It's mutually demeaning, and if they can't even be respectful enough for their own character to have them act like someone inconvenienced by mortality then I don't really think they'd be respectful of mine in any way either.

I do not know if you ever played a Bandit type of character or something, or have seen how Saw usually handles these things...But very often, people even at the first sign of it at that character get very offended OOCly. Will begrudgingly say "Yeah fine! Rp is RP!", and throw snippy and snarky comments at the "offenders" OOCly and ICly during the whole thing. Making it feel super awkward on the "offenders" side cause...Believe it or not, they usually do it to provide OTHERS with a good time and not elevate themselves. Or well, have a scene thats fun on either side. Things like that? Are fun for neither.

I'll get to my Korvara specific experience in a second but...

Usually when I join a new RP community or test it out with friends, I'll make a character with wandering monster syndrome. In this they'll usually be out and about and hitting people generally for some compelling lore-related reason. In this, I've interacted with a couple dozen communities that are sometimes larger but usually smaller than SL2 (because RP focused communities are usually pretty small) and I've tried a variety of rulesets from consent-heavy to 0 consent (but fade to black any scene that generally hits a limit like gore, etc). This goes to other BYOND games in a couple cases, but it's usually in some other community so the BYOND specific stuff is usually lost to me.

In consent heavy settings, you will meet those people. In no-consent settings where someone can absolutely ruin you, you will also still meet those people. You will not feel any better for deleting their character in the latter case, nor will you feel any better for walking away from their character in the former. At the very least, in the former, you have the option to always just walk away. Sadly, weirdly personal people who can't disassociate from their fictional characters is a bit of a pandemic in roleplay spaces.

So just don't interact with them. You have that choice. They can learn to be better on their own time, and there are no rules changes you could come up with that will change that. Find people you enjoy being around. Ideally, find a lot of people you enjoy being around. Be someone who you think the kind of people you want to write with would want to write with.

To my Korvara experience, I've mostly been a facilitator. I've conveniently looked the other way when people who were up to no good were around in a place that'd be really lame for me to just spot them. I've said 'yes' to just about anyone who's wanted to do something reasonably engaging and bad around my character. I've listened to people who clearly had plans, plots, and motives to enact them and gave them spaces next to influential people or at least away from interfering people to ensure that they could continue those plans and plots. I kinda got rolled into a position of vague authority and had to define what that meant and so I defined it to mean 'someone who doesn't do, but I make sure other people can when I have the ability.' In the earliest days, I set what I felt were dynamically tense settings for people to roleplay around and for other people to respond to if they had the wish. I never demanded anyone do any of that stuff back. The character I made for it was outside my usual repertoire of characters in a few meaningful ways.

So in that, I haven't really had the chance to play my usual brand of 'go around and cause problems.' But I've interacted with a good fair share of them. The ones I haven't, I made sure not to because it would be weird for my character to meet them, find them, or interact with them given the story being presented. I would consider them generally problem causing though. They did almost start a war a few times.

So to summarize the point of all of this, I can tell you that you're right. Those people do exist. Don't interact with them. You have that benefit here. If there were less rules for consent, you really wouldn't. The petulant people would just learn to build for PVP and roam in groups of 4 and then you'd be stuck with them for a couple hours after meeting them at least.

So nah, people will give consent, and then be excuse my wording be bitches about it, or it will generally be treated as a joke...Which in part I get OOCly given how Fodder Villains are really just...Kind of a joke. But hey, its still better that pure staleness, imo. And any other form of Villains just do not work. Maybe in a leader position, but outside of that? tough luck.

Just don't interact with those people. Learn to only treat with people who can suspend disbelief for a moment, and then broadcast your interactions out wider so everyone realizes that cool things are happening and that the only way to be involved is to play similar ball.

[Shujin]

The grind thing is probably a preference thing in the end of the day, But I think having attachment to both IC and Mechanical work adds, and helps feeling attached to the character and give a very satisfactory "I did it!" feeling. I certainly didn't mean to just amp up Experience points or reduce how much you gain, or some what. I meant systems outside of the "level 60" grind, that take a bit and add some value.
We have a very horizontal progression system, which has its cons and pros. I still feel it could be improved in either direction and have more challangign and fun PVE content. BUT thats whatever in the end.

The rest of your post...I think generally a good stand to have and if you do that all the kudos to you, I find that rare here in SL2 and is needed to allow actually good Villains to blossom.
The "Just ignore them", is sadly a problem however. It just adds to the problematic tribalism and clique mentality and given how many alts everyone has you do not always know from the get-go "oh its this guy!".
A twofold problem that...I do not think ignoring is truly the best solution in the end, alas...It is what I do. I am just not happy that it has to be that way. and its happening way more often than you think, and a single bad apple can spoil it for a lot of people cause those people usually like to over dramtize it or flat out lie to others. And my friend can't be wrong!

So yeah, I certainly get what you mean, I just think longterm thats not the ideal solution with such a small community.