Accidental death

[Snapdragon]

So, for awhile now I've been disliking the absolute rule that if you kill an orc, for whatever reason, you die yourself. I think that this rule may have been important during the early days of alpha, but as we move along, it becomes less and less prevalent.

Here are a few of my thoughts regarding abolishing the hard rule, and substituting a soft, case by case rule.

1. It weakens the sphere as a whole: There are enough dangers in regular play without needing to fear being killed off by a simple mistake. Granted, that in the case of accidental deaths, there should be -some- punishment, but instant death shouldn't be one of them.

2. Striza is known to spend gold on new recruits: Assuming he has a never ending supply of gold, that's fine. But I think even he would want to be somewhat frugal with gold at the end of the day considering how hard it is for us orcs to get them

3. Orcs rerolling humans when they feel unfairly killed off. No matter how you look at it, getting killed for something stupid would leave a bad taste in anyones mouth. Enough so, that alot of folk would rather roll a new character into the human sphere. That means that not only are then orcs losing two PCs, but often times the humans will be getting at least one more for their ranks which will make em stronger. More bodies, more resources gained from play, more resources processed.


I realize that I might be in the minority here in my thoughts, and I'm generally not one for long posts cause I feel like I don't write them well. But those are some of my reasonings for abolishing the insta death rule for accidental killings.

[AdamBlue]

Death is death.

[Rivean]

3. Orcs rerolling humans when they feel unfairly killed off. No matter how you look at it, getting killed for something stupid would leave a bad taste in anyones mouth. Enough so, that alot of folk would rather roll a new character into the human sphere. That means that not only are then orcs losing two PCs, but often times the humans will be getting at least one more for their ranks which will make em stronger. More bodies, more resources gained from play, more resources processed.

I don't play an orc, so take this with a pinch of salt, but I think this is a valid point, even if one ignores the other two. There's a fair bit of disgruntlement already, not baseless in my opinion, about the idea that the head Orc can magically know the cause behind EVERY murder in the orc sphere.

My suggestion would be to limit such oversight to those areas where it would be reasonable, or at least possible, for such information to get back to the head guy. But if your victim is fool enough to go alone with you into the woods...

[Snapdragon]

Death is death.

Not all death is created equal.

[Onasaki]

I agree, that death for death is a bad policy, it made sense earlier on, but I have to say it doesn't seem to work anymore.

If an accidental death happens, I think it should be on the player that committed the accidental murder to get punished severely for it, but not killed anymore. This punishment can range between being beaten bloody, and thrown into the pit for X amount of days.

Stripped of equipment, and forced to work up to what's mostly considered 'basic' armor these days (I'm talking anything that isn't raw-hide), in a gladitorial way.

Same with weapons. If you can be careful with your sharp pointy weapons of death, you don't get to play with them anymore.

[MrT2G]

It isn't a policy to be debated OOC.

It is an IC rule, established IC to dissuade needless killing. As such it should be discussed IC.

It is also a longstanding Orc thing. \o/

[Rivean]

It isn't a policy to be debated OOC.

The policy is IC. The fact that it can be enforced using magic OOC NPC omniscience is an OOC issue. I have no beef at all with the IC part of it, only the magical enforcement part of it.

[MrT2G]

It isn't a policy to be debated OOC.

The policy is IC. The fact that it can be enforced using magic OOC NPC omniscience is an OOC issue. I have no beef at all with the IC part of it, only the magical enforcement part of it.

Will considering it hasn't been enforced in this way recently doesn't make this an issue!

[Rivean]

It isn't a policy to be debated OOC.

The policy is IC. The fact that it can be enforced using magic OOC NPC omniscience is an OOC issue. I have no beef at all with the IC part of it, only the magical enforcement part of it.

Will considering it hasn't been enforced in this way recently doesn't make this an issue!

I don't really know what I'm talking about as my information is only second hand from what I've read on the forums - but possibly the reason this isn't enforced now is because people have simply stopped killing other people because it WAS being enforced that way, and for all they know, still is

[MrT2G]

My firsthand experience and interactions across the board leads me to believe it is no longer being handled this way in.

In extreme cases, it is likely still possible but in general, no.

To add, I think the only time 'kill and be killed' was strictly enforced it was by PCs. One of these times being under the encouragement of an animated NPC.

[Rivean]

My firsthand experience and interactions across the board leads me to believe it is no longer being handled this way in.

In extreme cases, it is likely still possible but in general, no.

In that case, kudos to the staff!

ETA: This is really encouraging on a whole host of levels. It's awesome to see that people are willing to revise policies that need tweaking. Great job guys.

[MrT2G]

My firsthand experience and interactions across the board leads me to believe it is no longer being handled this way in.

In extreme cases, it is likely still possible but in general, no.

In that case, kudos to the staff!

Indeed.

[EltanimRas]

It is an IC rule, established IC to dissuade needless killing. As such it should be discussed IC.

While I'm not going to opine on the policy itself, I do think that IC and OOC discussion are very different things, and that there's room for both.

Let's say, for example, that our local dictator has ICly (and indefinitely) sealed the gates. Can this be discussed IC? Sure, but if disagreement with said local dictator has a predictable association with negative consequences for the disagree-er, my PC may ICly prefer to keep his mouth shut.

And if a not insignificant part of the reason I (OOCly) dislike this (IC) policy is something like: 'People mud because they want adventure, and if they can't get it in our sphere, they're going to retire and recreate in the other one' ... well, I can only make that point OOCly?

[WorkerDrone]

I wouldn't reroll into the orc sphere without major changes to the way things are handled. I'm also leery of popping over when it's only operating at half capacity up top, because then I can't reasonably observe those policy changes over a period of time.

But Pallando promised a lot of things when he came back from wherever he went, so maybe it's better now.

[MrT2G]

It is an IC rule, established IC to dissuade needless killing. As such it should be discussed IC.

While I'm not going to opine on the policy itself, I do think that IC and OOC discussion are very different things, and that there's room for both.

Let's say, for example, that our local dictator has ICly (and indefinitely) sealed the gates. Can this be discussed IC? Sure, but if disagreement with said local dictator has a predictable association with negative consequences for the disagree-er, my PC may ICly prefer to keep his mouth shut.

And if a not insignificant part of the reason I (OOCly) dislike this (IC) policy is something like: 'People mud because they want adventure, and if they can't get it in our sphere, they're going to retire and recreate in the other one' ... well, I can only make that point OOCly?

I disagree with this opinion.

Mostly because I think finding alternative ways outside the city, rebelling against the dictator and his policies, and other similar courses of action are adventures in of themselves created by the dictator sealing the gates.

[Hazgarn]

Not an orc player, but I'd think discussion of an IC policy as an element of game design, and its impact on the stability of the sphere, is something that can only take place OOCly.

[LuckyV]

Not an orc player, but I'd think discussion of an IC policy as an element of game design, and its impact on the stability of the sphere, is something that can only take place OOCly.

Exactly, I doubt anyone has a character who would say:

"Personally I love this policy, but the powers that be and control my actions seem to disagree with me on this."

[EltanimRas]

MrT2G, is your concern that too much OOC discussion of this nature discourages players from taking the initiative to create RP and interaction in-game? Are there other issues you see with it?

[MrT2G]

In my perspective, it is easier to address it OOC then IC, but doing so IC creates RP.

Whether or not, that is RP you want to engage in is a different story. However, again, I don't think avoiding potential negative actions IC is a reason to pursue OOC avenues to create change.

Unless it is an OOC policy reflect IC, like animated NPCs to kill naughty PCs or rez'ing PCs because they were PK'd and thats against the 'rules.'

[MrT2G]

MrT2G, is your concern that too much OOC discussion of this nature discourages players from taking the initiative to create RP and interaction in-game? Are there other issues you see with it?

Yes, in essence I suppose.

It seems people are willing to take the risk to say something IC, so they say something on the forums instead.

Edited to add; There is no specific instance of this I am referring it, but just speaking to general opinions expressed and how I've interrupted them.

[Rivean]

MrT2G, is your concern that too much OOC discussion of this nature discourages players from taking the initiative to create RP and interaction in-game? Are there other issues you see with it?

Yes, in essence I suppose.

Which is all well and good from a 'Let's Create RP' perspective - but as others have noted, that's not very useful from a game design perspective.

"How does my PC react to this" and "Should this exist at all" are two very different questions. The former should be handled ICly, the latter can only be handled OOCly, and can certainly be a valid question to ask.

[MrT2G]

"How does my PC react to this" and "Should this exist at all" are two very different questions. The former should be handled ICly, the latter can only be handled OOCly, and can certainly be a valid question to ask.

I think we are are in agreement on this in general.

The disconnect may be what falls under which category. The examples I've seen given so far largely seem like poor or disfranchising choices by PC leadership in game.

My opinion is that OOC discussion is best used for Admin/Staff decisions that are beyond the realm of players. Anything a player chooses to do in game, in my opinion, can similarly be influenced/changed by players in game.

There are, of course, exceptions. For example, if suddenly a blacksmith start roleplaying have made a giant steam-powered robot of doom. This may warrant OOC action.

Edited to add; One example I thought of which players could do that would warrant OOC discussion would be the repeated rolling of 'friend/family' characters that end up being loyal supporters of a clan lead. This is an OOC action on behalf of players that can lead to tremendous IC consequences.

[Rivean]

The disconnect may be what falls under which category. The examples I've seen given so far largely seem like poor or disfranchising choices by PC leadership in game.

My opinion is that OOC discussion is best used for Admin/Staff decisions that are beyond the realm of players. Anything a player chooses to do in game, in my opinion, can similarly be influenced/changed by players in game.

Yes, in my case, I tend to object to game design issues (like the economy, like politics, etc.) that seem to clash with what makes sense rather than the actions of PCs (which will rarely make sense )

Edited to add; One example I thought of which players could do that would warrant OOC discussion would be the repeated rolling of 'friend/family' characters that end up being loyal supporters of a clan lead. This is an OOC action on behalf of players that can lead to tremendous IC consequences.

Ugh, the 'he rolled this for that reason so his OOC is now IC and now I'm OOCly mad because' cycle just gives me a headache to think about. So I don't think about it!

[EltanimRas]

It seems people are willing to take the risk to say something IC, so they say something on the forums instead.

There are a lot of trade-offs here, I think, and a lot of interaction between PCs' personalities and desires on the one hand, and their players' on the other.

Does my PC resent a rule and want to rebel against it?
Does he think that's likely to end badly for him?
Is he a risk-taker, or does he have a more cautious nature?
Do I as a player dislike the rule?
Do I think rebelling against it would end badly for my PC?
Do I think it would generate fun RP?

They're all separate questions, but we as players sometimes mix them up. Sometimes our PCs are uncharacteristically cautious because we as players feel protective of our investments in them. Other times they're unrealistically reckless because we're OOCly bored.

Anyway, I think that -- at least on those occasions where I take the time to consider these questions carefully -- some combinations of answers to them will lead me to OOC comment and others to IC action.

[Justanothacivy]

There should never be an issue with open discussion about policies. As long as players can do it logically not emotionally.

If 90% of your players dont like chocolate, stop feeding them chocolate. While the forum popular opinion is something I could care less about I did find it an odd decision aswell. My character has openly said what he thinks of it, not opposing or sowing dissent, just that accidentally killed someone? Oops. Oh well. We're orcs, we fight and die every day. This isnt something that should be a big deal. We'll just go press gang more clans and bolster our numbers.