Guilds & Accepting People

Anything to say about roleplay? Want to share a story? This is the right place.

Moderator: Wizards

Message
Author
User avatar
Delia
Overlord
Posts: 2782
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:22 am
Location: Finland

Re: Guilds & Accepting People

#61 Post by Delia » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:18 am

I guess the point is that ok, people can do "silly" stuff to a degree if its RP'd and handled maturely enough. Sure it is the current leadership be it the actual leader or people controlling the leader that defines the guild direction. So good guys can go bad and just about anything can happen. But then...at some point there comes an eventuality during which causality kicks in. How many times a fortress needs to be torn down stone by stone that it does not reappear after a reboot? That is something the wizzes might want to avoid unless it is a real necessity and so it is preferable to intervene when the actions themselves are taking place.

I understand the 'but hey this is RP and there are no defined limitations within RP' argument, but if you are going that solo with your feelings one might as well play Nethack. This is about a group effort after all, not about individuals that do as they please even if that might seem appropriate within the game environment. So everyone learn to have some fun with your hands tied just a bit, please?
"To be is to do" - Sokrates
"To do is to be" - Jean-Paul Sartre
"Do be do be do" - Frank Sinatra

User avatar
tessa
Overlord
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:03 am
Location: My own imagination.

Re: Guilds & Accepting People

#62 Post by tessa » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:31 am

isengoo wrote:That sounds incredibly boring.
Then don't join a guild. Or make your own. But trying to derail a pre-existing guild into something it wasn't meant to be is basically challenging wizards to delete or replace it. The Legion and Shadow Lurkers didn't get the boot for whimsical reasons.

This isn't to say guilds need to be RPed in only one linear way. There's different ways to interpret guild beliefs or concepts, for instance. But, if let's say hypothetically the Rangers turned from a guild of Queen-loyal Evren-following samaritans into a guild of Elvandar-opposing Lilithian assassins, I could almost guarantee you the guild would've been removed.

There's many different ways to play an Asral Cleric, but I could guarantee you any attempts to turn the Warclergy from a guild of hardened warriors into a guild of drunken promiscious market-partiers would probably not receive much endorsement.

Playing a non-typical character in a guild is quite fine. Even a single renegade player in a guild is fine if everything is RP'd out, including the good and bad. But a whole guild going off-course is generally considered problematic. After all, what would be the point of a guild of pacifists or such if all the members were war-hungry brawlers?

User avatar
Drake
Wizard
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:31 am
Location: In the land down under
Contact:

Re: Guilds & Accepting People

#63 Post by Drake » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:39 am

vurdijak wrote:I played a ranger for a long time, a long time ago. This was before the citizens of a city would hate you for backstabbing. At that time backstabbing was not viewed in the same way it is now. Keep in mind that Delmon is right in a sense here, the changes in code in the game have also changed what is acceptable behavior for a good guild.
The descriptions alone should have been more than enough to indicate what that particular action entailed as far as a good/neutral/evil alignment went.

Roleplay should have taken over from there utilizing those code prompts and following on accordingly. Sadly, the power and usefullness of the attack made it easy for people to chose to ignore that obvious indication of the attacks nature.

Hence the need to add additional code to make that sink in all the more clearly. The repercussions for using the attack should have been coming from the playerbase, those of good and neutral alignment at least.

Drake
Evil in Training.
Gods middle finger.

isengoo
Champion
Posts: 828
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2007 9:38 pm

Re: Guilds & Accepting People

#64 Post by isengoo » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:53 am

I think you took my point out of context. The game already provides for checks and balances so people know if their RP is out of sync with how their character should be behaving given the circumstances (reputation, karma, other people?). I don't think bothering the wizards with any action you take is necessary given the system already does it for you.

I guess I should state that I still don't think backstabbing is all that bad, compared to torturing people, especially when used for good ends, and I don't like that the system doesn't reflect this, but I understand the near impossibility of capturing all things under the karma or reputation system when an inputted command isn't used.

If you imagine the process of backstabbing someone, let's imagine the scenario of a good guy backstabbing an evil guy (for all intents and purposes) the only real action involved is sneaking behind someone to place a dagger in their back. The dagger being placed into their flesh isn't outside the norm of everyday combat, excepting some strange moral device people have attached to it under this circumstance. Often, 'good' people will lie in wait and ambush other people with nothing happening to their karma or their reputation because they didn't input a command, but I say there is no difference between this type of behavior and a backstab.

Now, let us examine the torture of someone. For this hypothetical, let's say the torturers are good and the tortured is evil. This is also a common enough occurrence, so nobody can say I am wrong for fear of looking foolish. So, the good agent here has a weapon, let's say a saw, and he slowly cleaves through the evil agent's flesh, while they are chained up, with express intent to cause pain. The intent with the backstab is to kill, the intent here is to cause pain so as to derive information. I ask you, which is more sinister? Surely, nobody can say the backstab is the more evil of the acts.

Therefore, Rangers backstabbing orcs seems perfectly reasonable in my eyes, if Crusaders/Taniel Priests torturing people is also acceptable.

User avatar
Delia
Overlord
Posts: 2782
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:22 am
Location: Finland

Re: Guilds & Accepting People

#65 Post by Delia » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:58 am

I started a backstab discussing, so speak about it there.
"To be is to do" - Sokrates
"To do is to be" - Jean-Paul Sartre
"Do be do be do" - Frank Sinatra

User avatar
Drake
Wizard
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:31 am
Location: In the land down under
Contact:

Re: Guilds & Accepting People

#66 Post by Drake » Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:33 am

isengoo wrote:So, the good agent here has a weapon, let's say a saw, and he slowly cleaves through the evil agent's flesh, while they are chained up, with express intent to cause pain.
That is of course assuming that the intent of the action is to cause pain.

Something fitting for an evil character, something the evil gods and people of the world look down on favourably, but something the good gods and people do not.

And yes, sadly no code system could catch a a good character torturing to cause pain.

We have to assume that the majority of the good characters will do as intended and torture to punish for past/present crimes. An act looked down on favourably by the good gods and people of the world, but not the evil gods and people.

As for backstabbing, sadly for its proponents, no one in the world is happy or comfortable with the prospect of being around someone who so obviously (from the well worded and rather clear description) takes great pleasure in attempting to kill without giving an opponent a chance to protect themselves, let alone retaliate.

Intent means alot, and its by design backstab involves evil pleasure in what the person executing it is about to do.

Its up to the player to choose if they wish their character to be taking satanic pleasure in backstabbing, by design an inherant intent of the attack.

Drake
Evil in Training.
Gods middle finger.

User avatar
Naga
Hero
Posts: 289
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 3:16 am
Location: Shangri-La

Re: Guilds & Accepting People

#67 Post by Naga » Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:25 am

All that from the "satanic grin" message when backstabbing?

Come on, Drake...

User avatar
Drake
Wizard
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:31 am
Location: In the land down under
Contact:

Re: Guilds & Accepting People

#68 Post by Drake » Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:44 am

Naga wrote:All that from the "satanic grin" message when backstabbing?

Come on, Drake...
Obviously.

The message is what it is for a reason. Code being added to the game to support that message makes it pretty obvious, to me at least, that that is how it is intended to be.

Drake
Evil in Training.
Gods middle finger.

Herst
Master
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Guilds & Accepting People

#69 Post by Herst » Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:48 am

I just want to add that most of the Ranger backstabbers were Asralites!

I think that says enough about the intent there. They just cared about the power of the attack, and ignored all RP aspects of it.

Delmon
Champion
Posts: 751
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:19 pm
Location: USA

Re: Guilds & Accepting People

#70 Post by Delmon » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:52 pm

I think that says enough about the intent there. They just cared about the power of the attack, and ignored all RP aspects of it.
Wow, we didnt care about rp?.... lol.

User avatar
tessa
Overlord
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 6:03 am
Location: My own imagination.

Re: Guilds & Accepting People

#71 Post by tessa » Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:59 pm

I think it's safe to say that most if not all people that use backstab do it because it's an overpowered move that can put half the fight out of anything it hits, and can easily be repeated in succession against NPCs.

Herst
Master
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Guilds & Accepting People

#72 Post by Herst » Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:35 pm

Delmon wrote:
Wow, we didnt care about rp?.... lol.
You admit you used thief tactics and skills. There wasn't much other skills utilized by the Rangers at that time. So you acted more like a thieves guild than a Rangers guild. Yet, you were Rangers.

I think that answers the question itself.

User avatar
stilgar
Champion
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:01 am
Location: Pecs, Hungary

Re: Guilds & Accepting People

#73 Post by stilgar » Tue Nov 04, 2008 7:21 am

Herst wrote: You admit you used thief tactics and skills. There wasn't much other skills utilized by the Rangers at that time. So you acted more like a thieves guild than a Rangers guild. Yet, you were Rangers.

I think that answers the question itself.
Uhm.. so anyone usig shaolin skills is a shaolin? :twisted:

Don't get the logic. Why don't you simply say: this skill was not intended to use by anyone else and hardcode it?

Really don't get the discuss about these things. Why you try to set up any ideological background for it? This way any crusader that does exactly the same things that a sathonite (eg, hunt, torture, maim, sacrifice people(purify? yes, you call it that way)) would do bad RP. They don't..

Why? Its intended and implemented to be that way. Don't like people using backstab? Hardcode it. Rangers cry about not having efficient tools? Code them, or don't code them so people won't play rangers if they think they are underpowered (if you ask me first a new concept should be made for rangers, then implement abilities to be able to fullfill the role they intended to have, then tell them they do bad RP if they cannot.. same about the Shaolin and Asrals, as I mentioned that elsewhere).

Comparing one guild to another in a non-equal-opportunity mud this way is quite sad.. IMO. Simply not fair... its like expecting any non hungarian to learn the language, then laugh at him when he makes mistakes, or declare him stupid he can't learn a language that a 3 year old can...

I know we can argue, I now we can have opinion, but please, don't give up being objective, just to "win" in an argument. Those playing GEAS long enough know these kind of discussions were made again and again, Indeed, they will happen again and again as long as some guilds simply don't have the tools to fulfill their role :wink: .
Future is NOT what it used to be

Pecs, European Capital of Culture 2010

Herst
Master
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Guilds & Accepting People

#74 Post by Herst » Tue Nov 04, 2008 9:04 am

The logic is quite simple.

They used thief tactics only. During this era, it was quite common to see a Ranger not even carrying a bow. They decided using custom items (not even of the Ranger type) and backstabb was better than using Ranger items and a bow.

So the logic is, if you wanted to be in another guild, don't try to turn the Rangers into that guild. Join the other guild instead.

You give the example of the Shaolin. Then let me use the exact same example there. It would be like joining the Shaolin, wearing the Shaolin robe and belt, and not using any martial arts or acting like a Shaolin.

Now do you see the logic?

User avatar
stilgar
Champion
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:01 am
Location: Pecs, Hungary

Re: Guilds & Accepting People

#75 Post by stilgar » Tue Nov 04, 2008 10:28 am

That is good so far..

Now let me explain another point of view:

You're a satho. Imagine you can raise only skeletons and cannot team them. They are easy to turn by even a weak cleric. You have no plague spells. How would you fight against crusaders and the Taniel clergy who outnumber you at least 4-5 times with active players. Two of them in almost any combinations capable of taking the tower of pain. I remember something like this.. :wink: Meantime telling the sathos they were making poor RP and all they can do is whine instead of thinking. :wink:

The moment a certain guild or faction has the abilities and support to fullfill a given role, trust me they will. If you intend to give a role to a certain class (eg. clergies, crusade, rangers, asrals, shaolin) then inspect if they are capable at all to fulfill the role they were intended to.

You see my logic? :wink:
Future is NOT what it used to be

Pecs, European Capital of Culture 2010

Herst
Master
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Guilds & Accepting People

#76 Post by Herst » Tue Nov 04, 2008 10:34 am

No, I see no logic in that all.

Did the Sathonite use guild equipment? Did the Sathonite use any miracles?
Did the Sathonite try to act like a completely opposite guild, for instance the Legion or Crusade? If not, then your example is not valid.

The example I gave was of a real situation. One guild acting completely like another guild. Using the same skills and tactics of another guild, and not using anything of their own that was coded for them. The Rangers do not have any thing special coded for them, and have nothing new since that era, but they are doing much better in not acting like the Shadow Lurkers.

User avatar
stilgar
Champion
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:01 am
Location: Pecs, Hungary

Re: Guilds & Accepting People

#77 Post by stilgar » Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:56 am

Herst wrote:The example I gave was of a real situation. One guild acting completely like another guild. Using the same skills and tactics of another guild, and not using anything of their own that was coded for them. The Rangers do not have any thing special coded for them, and have nothing new since that era, but they are doing much better in not acting like the Shadow Lurkers.
There are guild related skills and tactics then? I saw a lot of people raising word against making skills guild related. This means a good portion if not the majority of the players don't agree on any skills should be guild related... what do we talk about then?

The original idea was.. complaining about bad Ranger RP while they used bacstabbing and other powerful abilities did not belong to their guild. that is why I mentioned.. either hardcode skills to a certain guild and its done (not even a chance to do "bad RP") or simply think about why on earth they did it and solve the problem instead of simply declaring: they did crappy RP :wink:

Still don't see my logic?

ps: My example was real too. As that also happened :wink: And yes, the Sathos were using Crusader tactics: run around and hunt their enemies, possibly kill or capture and torture before killing. :twisted:
Future is NOT what it used to be

Pecs, European Capital of Culture 2010

Herst
Master
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Guilds & Accepting People

#78 Post by Herst » Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:01 pm

Oh, I know why they did it. They openly admitted it IC.

"I don't like to use a bow, it takes to long to train missile. I can learn to backstab faster, and it does a lot of damage"

"I don't like to use spears, I like swords. I don't want to waste my time training spear when I already know how to use a sword"

"I don't like our knives, I would rather have a mithirl dagger. It will do more damage when I backstab"

"I don't want to learn missile because I have to carry arrows. I can't sneak in and backstab someone if I have a quiver with arrows in it"

"I don't want to wear our guild armours, I can't sneak in and backstab effectively in them"

Those are some of the things said on the MUD.

User avatar
stilgar
Champion
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:01 am
Location: Pecs, Hungary

Re: Guilds & Accepting People

#79 Post by stilgar » Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:59 pm

In this case its the person, not the guild. So saying XY in person did bad RP is proper.. saying the "Rangers" did bad RP is improper. :wink:

Nonetheless I still say if you try to judge a guild please consider the desired role and the expectations towards that guild and the tools and support were given to them to fulfill the role, saying this or that guild does crappy RP can come just after that.
Future is NOT what it used to be

Pecs, European Capital of Culture 2010

Herst
Master
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Guilds & Accepting People

#80 Post by Herst » Tue Nov 04, 2008 1:06 pm

I was not talking about a specific person. I was speaking of the whole guild.

Do you remember the sayings at the time?
"The Rangers have traded in archery for backstabbing"

The whole guild made those statements, bar 1 or 2 people.

At the time, there were only 2 Rangers that even carried a bow.
Only 2 that knew how to use one. 2 out of 7.

The other 5 wanted to utilize skills, abilities and tactics of the Shadow Lurkers instead of the Rangers.

Not to mention, they were trading their guild equipment to others for personal gain and benefit. I believe it is common sense that what is coded for your guild, is for your guild only. Guild equipment is something you should take pride in and cherish, not something to be used to trade for something else you like better.

Now if you look at the current Rangers, they do not have anything different than those of that era had. They have the exact same tools. The only thing they have different is the group of people that wanted to act like a bunch of thieves.

So, back on the topic: It is probably best to screen your applicants wisely, instead of accepting everyone who wants to join just because you are lonely.

Post Reply