So I want to ask if its fair that if someone doesn't rp their death accordingly that other forms of punishment can be used.
The problem is that if a player does not want to RP a death, there is no way he or she can be made to want to roleplay.
Technically, a death is only lost time. The "currency" is online time (playing time), recovering effectively only takes time.
I have lost track how often my character died. Once you died the 100th time, you start to unavoidably care less and less.
The punishments can be a problem because they have a rather long downtime and you are handicapped during that, whereas if you get fully ressed (a complete respawn), you can continue playing without handicap, other than lower vitality (weaker character). If you lose one arm, you can't swing the big axe, but if you respawn, you can instantly swing again - this is a problem IMO with how punishments are setup. The assumption was that the punishment is not as severe as death, but from a technical point of view in regards to "efficiency", this is not quite so the case if you ask me. I'd take the death (OOCly) because it is less annoying than the punishment.
This has been a problem even years ago, where a player would repeatedly respawn and suicide into Sathos (or rather, the Satho trap, or perhaps both). There was no chance of winning, so it was only a nuisance.
Incidents like that led to Abharsairs old note about the meaning of death and guildwars.
I don't think this has ever been resolved.
As harsh as it may sound, and I know many players won't like it, but I believe there should be ways as to make death more severe after a while (say the fourth or fifth death in 2 or 3 days?). That could include that additional respawns take significantly more and more time before the ghost can reform into a body, and temporary and even permanent XP loss as well.
You also must not forget that there is also a psychological component - e. g. in a guildwar or war, even if you die, what advantage does it give the one who was defeated IF he wants to continue fighting? Defeat often leads to a worse outcome IC, so you can just either continue playing, avoid getting killed - or getting killed, yet continue to play as if nothing has happened.
The only way to effectively cause option 2, e. g. to make them realize that the fight is useless, is by making the whole game dynamic so that when certain "keypoints" are reached, adjustments are made automatically including the guaranteed risk that the guildhalls were to be disabled, at least temporarily. Of course this should take constant effort by the eventual victor side, too, and it needs to happen without pre-determined winner scenarios, as that would be unfair otherwise.
For instance, five successful raids could lead to much higher prices, weaker NPC guards, and so forth and so on (determined for all guilds, and achievable for all guilds too; that would require the game to become more balanced in general, and balance is hard to achieve or retain). Note that this refers to "winnable" wars, players might well still decide to continue fighting, and I think that in that case, why should they not be allowed to do so? There is no game rule that says "after 10 defeats you have automatically lost".
In practice, I also think that it was not really a big problem because in general, some guilds are at permanent warfare or at least PvP anyway. I think it becomes a much bigger problem when wizards get involved and make arbitrary changes.
And if you look at PO from the Order, while they should in principle be the best in PvP, they actually don't want to PvP non-stop. The game is not interesting to them if it were the case, and OOCly I can understand that completely - just from an IC point of view, it won't make sense for every guild or character to want to become peaceful.