Geas

Perhaps set no-legs movement to sneak speed to simulate crawling?

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Leaving someone alone, without legs and without means of communication is the same as leaving someone naked and shackled somewhere. And we know this usually doesn't happen (at least not if the participating parties have any sense for fairness).

So I'd say worry about it when (and IF) it becomes a problem.

Maybe they can use their mouths to bite their way along or perhaps just "roll" to next room.

*Stump of Alamar rolls in from the south*

*Stump of Alamar rolls north*

Nah, that's not a good idea. You're just weird.

*Stump of Olrane bites the ground, a meaningless gesture of futility*

*stump of nogem cries: "It's just a flesh wound!"*

emote hopes that poOlrane knew that that was a joke

Just an observation...I've noticed some mercenaries missing limbs after punishing got possible, so I guess its possible to knock guild-guards, city-guards and so forth uncon and maim them thus crippling defence for a time too. Starts to sound bit like abuse or something...any thoughts?

I don't think that's abuse, I think that's great tactics.

I'm inclined to agree with Delia. Preventing respawns seems lame. As for as great tactics, I don't see any ic tactical advantage to maiming rather than killing. A dead guard would ultimately weaken a city more than a maimed guard (less experience, knowledge of enemies and so on). It also means that a guild would have to finish off their own guards to have them replaced, becoming enemies in the process. This is the result of ooc mechanics and really makes no ic sense at all.

From an ic point of view, I think the mercenerary leader or guard captain would replace a stump just like he would replace a corpse. Is there something I'm missing?

Edit: the same thing goes for scripted npcs who are relocated and abandonned so they can't do their thing. I remember when folks would beat up Gerrit and hide him somewhere. He'd be gone until the next reboot.

Olrane wrote:I don't think that's abuse, I think that's great tactics.

Removing npcs for an entire week sounds fair, when they're usually supposed to be respawned every 30~ minutes or so after being dispatched? I disagree.

I don't think it's fair at all to cripple, relocate, or constrain NPCs for days or a week. Especially since I would expect the NPCs to be able to eventually free themselves, or go to a temple to heal (just like they do when they get killed). At least, if someone cut Tessa's arms off and left her in a swamp, I wouldn't sit there until reboot, I'd go find a temple and get healed. I'd expect NPCs would think the same way. I just don't see how being moved to a different room or having one's arms cut off should be more critical than being killed. Maybe so code wise, but ICly, no.

It's great tactics, until you're on the receiving end of having your guards, mercs, or shop keepers imprisoned, relocated to isolated spots, stripped naked, or dismembered, yet left alive, and there's nothing you can do about it, because killing them is poor RP, and then they'll start attacking you on sight from then on.

realocating special chars( for example the patrol, the seer, shopkeeper, guildguards....) just for the reason that they won`t respawn sucks alot . From my point of view it it just abusing the fact that the code doesn`t support them going back again. If you punish them removing a leg or arm thats fine the guy could have killed him anyway. And this way you can show a guild that you don`t joke even without killing theiir guildguards completly

If there's RP reason for punishing an NPC (and they can recover themselves/get replaced with a new guard/etc. after a short time), I think that's fine, but intentionally doing something to them for no other reason than imprisoning/relocating/crippling them until reboot is another matter, in my opinion.

Ah. I wasn't espousing the idea of crippling anything for any longer than a day or so - and I agree that relocating NPCs is very lame.

I still think that it would not be abuse to beat up on guards and leave them in a weakened state so that on your next assault you can pass them a little bit more easily.

By the way, to all of you who got upset, I never said anything in support of REMOVING any NPCs from play, I just said it would not be a problem if they were left crippled, since that's a part of life and another possibility for roleplay.

But does it make sense for an NPC who's crippled to remain so for IC weeks/months, yet when they're killed, they get fully recovered/replaced within 3 IC hours or so?

At least, I don't think cities like Arborea or Asador would leave their gates guarded by a bunch of armless guards for a month, I think they would replace them pretty quick. Especially since the guards are the nameless kinds easily replaced, unlike the personalized guards like at UG or Elvandar. And in the latter case, what stops them from going to the temple to recover injuries once things are quiet?

I just don't think it makes much sense if injuries are, or should be, more crippling than death.

I think the point some people are missing is that, with this new command, you can use it on NPCs to bypass killing them, and the NPCs will remain 'punished' for longer than if you had just killed them.