The Crusade

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

Moderator: Wizards

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

#21 Post by isengoo » Fri Feb 08, 2008 2:43 pm

Also, sometimes, as an Asral, it's impossible to not burn things. Hfire just does what it does. I'm not going to not use it because someone's special cape might burn up.

Olrane
Champion
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 12:56 am
Location: Illinois

#22 Post by Olrane » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:50 pm

Most of the time, there's a period during which you can extinguish flames, so I can't see this as being a problem. If your custom cape is on fire, I'd suggest you run away to put it out...Fire can defeat you as much as bleeding can, if you've got sentimental gear. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that, as fire ICly should make almost anyone panick.

Quick question: does fighting with a lit torch allow a character a chance to set his enemy on fire? I think that if it is not possible, it should be. Hfire is really cool, but I think there should be a mundane way to do this...you would already be sacrificing a lot of damage to wield a weak torch, and you'd probably have to be no beginner with using clubs to pull it off, but it might add something to combat if some people decided to use fire.

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

#23 Post by tessa » Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:50 pm

olrane wrote:Most of the time, there's a period during which you can extinguish flames, so I can't see this as being a problem. If your custom cape is on fire, I'd suggest you run away to put it out...
It can be hard when in a fight or being chased by people attacking you, and it can be hard too, if there's more than just the cape, but a good 6 or more custom items being burned all at once.

Of course, I'm paranoid (and possibly rightfully so) of the Asrals that insist on having fights with Tessa and wanting to be allowed to use hfire in the fight.

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

#24 Post by isengoo » Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:25 am

Nobody forced you to be a Gwennie scum, whose only right in Geas is to burn :twisted:

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

#25 Post by tessa » Sat Feb 09, 2008 1:38 am

I will counter by hiring Crusaders to burn down Asral temples.

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

#26 Post by Naga » Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:02 am

isengoo wrote:Also, much can be said about the Spanish Inquisition, but uh, there's not enough room here :P
Proto-Protestants and insincere conversions constituted a fifth column in Spanish society. All executions were performed by legitimate civil authorities. (Just kidding... or am I?)

As for the Crusade, any and all amount of force exercised is justified, as characters now must be aware that evil conducted even is secret has serious IC consequences. This positive benefit is greater than any disadvantage or excess incurred.

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

#27 Post by Delmon » Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:58 pm

The world our characters live in is a fantasy world, with a fantasy setting. It is not politically correct. If someone gets offended because they were killed, they are not dead forever. They can change their actions, or fight back. They always have those options.
I didn't read all the posts honestly, but I read the first ones.

On circumstances:
I love hitting enemies now and then. I don't "mind" dying OOC (although it's annoying enough wizzies!) , and IC I don't mind making excuses for deaths and gloating about the skirmishes I'm in. If anyone notices Delmon "whining" in game, it's just because of rp. If the crusaders burn me alive IC, well you'd better expect Delmon to get 5 times as pissed as I am OOC.

On Crussies and roleplaying:
Punishment does not mean that people OOC should change their characters actions IC.

On backstabbing:
I do believe, however, that backstabbing should be judged by the characters IC, rather than aided by code...
As one who argues IC for backstabbing as being a viable method of killing, I will have to say the code limits the debate. A common arguement I have to deal with is "hey, the townspeople consider backstabbing evil, so obviously it is!"
Another one I have to deal with is "hey! You're karma is neutral to bad(usually because of backstabbing), so backstabbing is evil!"
Karma seems to limit alot on the whole "what is evil arguement." The crusaders have a simple mission: Punish those with bad karma according to tanielite tests, and kill sathos. The rangers, eh, I think I've proved their mission was not as defined.

On punishment:
The real problem is understanding the other person playing a certain character and how they will react to punishment. Of course it's impossible. But, put yourself in their OOC shoes. Let's say I'm a ranger and I'm the head of the alchemists. Now I know that a certain character did not do anything bad according to alcemists, but because I'm at war with their occupational guild, I'm going to boot them. Now imagine if that certain character used the alchemist guild for half their fun. Would that be malicious OOC? Yes. Should it be done? No.

Oh, yes:
You know what would be great? If the riding lance was really a riding lance, and only worked on the unicorn
Amen. I'm serious.

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

#28 Post by tessa » Sat Feb 09, 2008 6:30 pm

Delmon wrote:A common arguement I have to deal with is "hey, the townspeople consider backstabbing evil, so obviously it is!"
Well, usually if everyone agrees with something, like the sky being blue, it comes to be considered as so.

Also, keep in mind, as far as I know, backstab was originally a skill exclusively for shadow lurkers, until eventually everyone learned it. If I'm correct on that assessment, then it shouldn't be all that odd for common folk to mistrust it, given its origination.

After all, if someone went around wearing bone armours, most people would probably associate that person with Sathonites, even if he isn't one (or in a recent case, silvery armours with tanielites).

krelji
Hero
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 5:48 am

#29 Post by krelji » Sat Feb 09, 2008 6:49 pm

Backstab might have been meant to be exclusively for the Lurkers, yet it
was damn easy to learn. Learning by watching it was never an issue once
you found someone who could already use it.

The problem that I got with condemning backstab is that you can use
similar tactics ( sneak up on your target and use <insert your favourite
special here> to attack your target ). Such tactics should have a similar
effect on your reputation, and I doubt that is the case.
All knowledge is heresy. Yes, you heard me correctly.
It is the nature of religions to thrive on ignorance.

endellion
Journeyman
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:48 pm
Location: Salem, Oregon

#30 Post by endellion » Sat Feb 09, 2008 6:52 pm

Delmon wrote:
On punishment:
The real problem is understanding the other person playing a certain character and how they will react to punishment. Of course it's impossible. But, put yourself in their OOC shoes. Let's say I'm a ranger and I'm the head of the alchemists. Now I know that a certain character did not do anything bad according to alcemists, but because I'm at war with their occupational guild, I'm going to boot them. Now imagine if that certain character used the alchemist guild for half their fun. Would that be malicious OOC? Yes. Should it be done? No.
This is the main thing I see as a problem. Was that Ceinna ended up being expelled from a guild that had nothing to do with the war. Even if things are IC, there are times that the person's OOC feelings or issues have to be considered before making a decision. I am not trying to whine, or complain, but I think that there should be limits.

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

#31 Post by tessa » Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:13 pm

Seeing how that was an isolated situation, and it's done and over with already and being reverted, I don't think it's very fair to keep dragging it on.

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

#32 Post by Delmon » Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:24 pm

Then the question is:

Is there "too far" to punishing in the name of roleplay?

endellion
Journeyman
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 6:48 pm
Location: Salem, Oregon

#33 Post by endellion » Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:35 pm

I think Im simply trying to reiterate Delmons post. That you can go too far. From the help rules file:

- Mortals can do nearly anything that is fun and enhances the gameplay,
as long as they don't
o cheat
o abuse bugs
o ruin the game (or parts of it) for other players
o harass other players in any way
o insult other players out of character, or accuse them of abuse or
unsportly behavior, without contacting the Playerarch or the Admin

I think that when you take away things from players that they were not even expecting, such as in Ceinna's case - although I know it is in the process of being dealt with, but has not been dealt with completely - that you can easily ruin parts of the game for other players. I just think that people should stop to consider this before making rash decisions.

On the other hand. You want to capture me (on any of my alts) drag me somewhere and torture me, Im thrilled to go along, I find it fun! I think that the Crusaders play fanatic corrupt good incredibly well, I enjoy their RP, I think they make the game interesting, Im just stating that I think there is a limit.

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

#34 Post by isengoo » Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:36 pm

I think the obvious "too far" limits are set by the fair play guidelines, which most people forget in these situations.

krelji
Hero
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 5:48 am

#35 Post by krelji » Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:44 pm

I don't see a big problem with expelling unwanted members, even if I don't
have a real reason for doing so. Naturally I'd expect the same fate for
myself in such situation, which is why I usually won't do that.
You only have problems when other guildmembers don't have the guts to
fix those issues. Once the problem is fixed, the expelled member could easily
rejoin.
All knowledge is heresy. Yes, you heard me correctly.
It is the nature of religions to thrive on ignorance.

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

#36 Post by tessa » Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:52 pm

isengoo wrote:I think the obvious "too far" limits are set by the fair play guidelines, which most people forget in these situations.
As sad as the statement is, I am afraid I have to agree. I feel there's too many players these days that are out to "win" the game and "beat" the people they dislike than they are to have fun playing and interacting with fellow players.

User avatar
chara
Wizard
Posts: 456
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:54 am

#37 Post by chara » Sat Feb 09, 2008 9:02 pm

Delmon wrote: On backstabbing:
I do believe, however, that backstabbing should be judged by the characters IC, rather than aided by code...
As one who argues IC for backstabbing as being a viable method of killing, I will have to say the code limits the debate. A common arguement I have to deal with is "hey, the townspeople consider backstabbing evil, so obviously it is!"
Delmon, many of the roleplaying aspects of Geas are set by the code we create. In the world of Geas, the vast majority of law-abiding, 'good' people of the type you'll find in Elvandar and Arborea think that backstabbing is cowardly, untrustworthy, and a mark of a thief at best, but more likely an assassin. It's not an argument, and to ignore that overwhelming belief and try to maintain that it's a perfectly upstanding thing to do is really just ignoring the roleplay of the world around you.

Some kind of analogy might be if you made it a habit to break into morgues and mutilate corpses. People would probably believe that was a sick, immoral, and deviant thing to do. You could argue that it's not really hurting anyone, and that the worms will do far worse to those corpses in a short period of time, and you might even be logically correct - but people will still think you're sick and perverted for doing it.

In a similar way, the general population of Elvandar and Arborea have a great repulsion for backstabbers, associating them with dark deeds in back alleyways and hating and fearing them. To them, the similarity of backstab to other fighting tactics is unimportant when compared to the likelihood, in their opinion, that the person doing so is a thief or assassin, or knows one far too well.

The opinion of the general population is not an "argument" that you "have to deal with" it's a fact of the world that your character lives in. And instead of dismissing it or arguing it, you should really incorporate it into how your character behaves.

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

#38 Post by Naga » Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:11 am

Delmon never mentioned reputation, but rather karma. Isn't it feasible that a skilled assassin might employ his suspicious techniques for the sake of good, be rejected by all the citizens of the various cities, yet still be on good terms with the good gods? Surely there can be a difference between the sentiments of the people, on the one hand, and the color of a man's heart on the other.

Of course, the player characters should, by and large, agree with the opinion of the masses. However, we don't see that right now, really. We don't see players saying, "That damned fellow is a roguish marauder! Stay away from him! I don't care whether he's killing darkelves, I just don't want him near me!" Instead, we see players saying, "His actions are intrinsically evil and need to be punished."

I support Isengorn's proposal of implementing the principle of double effect: a reputation malus with ANY backstab, bad karma against good targets, good karma against bad targets, or something along those lines.

Ideally, it would be a little more nuanced than that and perhaps karma might not be involved at all, but rather divine favor?

User avatar
jezz
Hero
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:06 am
Location: Spain

#39 Post by jezz » Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:45 am

Delmon wrote: Oh, yes:
You know what would be great? If the riding lance was really a riding lance, and only worked on the unicorn
Amen. I'm serious.
That was really refreshing to read :)

Amenx2

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

#40 Post by tessa » Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:11 am

Naga wrote:I support Isengorn's proposal of implementing the principle of double effect: a reputation malus with ANY backstab, bad karma against good targets, good karma against bad targets, or something along those lines.
Something along those lines already exists: Backstabbing as far as I know is a appreciative technique in Asador, whereas it's disliked elsewhere. People of Asador would probably be envious of your skill at being an assassin. A normal person would find you incredibly sketchy for acting like some kind of thief (in much the same way, I think people in RL would not trust a mafia mobster or some pistol-toting gangster just because they've gone after a couple of other mobsters/gangsters).

And frankly I don't think it should make a difference who it's used against. Assassins often killed who they were paid to kill. So some guy just assassinated a Satho priest with a backstab, but who's to say you won't be the next target? And using the example in my last paragraph, who's to say he's doing it for 'heroic' causes, and not doing it to take down a rival or competition?

I don't really support the "the ends justify the means" logic for these kind of things, and especially how some players tend to act, I wouldn't be surprised to see this kind of logic eventually extended towards Drizzt darkelves, noble cannibals, and good-hearted Sathonites/Lilithians at one point.
jezz wrote:
Delmon wrote: Oh, yes:
You know what would be great? If the riding lance was really a riding lance, and only worked on the unicorn
Amen. I'm serious.
That was really refreshing to read :)

Amenx2
If you two think having limbs lobbed off by an oversized axe is better than 'only' gaping pierce wounds by a spear, then more power to you. ;)

Post Reply