Madrigality

[mendoza]

I was going to post this as a comment in response to sithlorddarren's impassioned post, but as I'm not a Friend, I can't. Still, I think it's a valid question and I would love to hear what people think:

Comments

[arianhwyvar]

Not to nitpick, but in delving into that I have some more questions:

You're asking specifically should be allowed to do about it rather than should do about it? My answers to the two are very different

[jetshade]

I have to agree here

[hilariarex]

However, if a player chooses to play their character in such a way as they decide to take actions that are probable or even likely to upset other characters, especially actions that they realize are probably going to have IG repercussions, then it becomes fairly unreasonable for them to protest when those repercussions fall on them, be they from staff or other players. Characters have to take responsibility for their actions, words and choices. If a character has chosen a path that is likely to make other characters want to kill them, then they made that choice. If they choose actions that endanger, horrify and offend the other characters, especially in the case where they KNOW their actions will have that effect, then whatever response the other characters have is appropriate.However, I think it's important to realize that in many games there may not be one single defined morality or version of what is "right." What happens in a situation where a player does something because their character believes it is the right or best thing to

[vastin]

Such a system as you are proposing basically existed in Cavalier, where there was a fairly strict code of conduct that forbade killing without strict need (even the hostile human NPC's adhered to it - better than some of the PCs...). It worked fairly well - you handed over anyone you captured (NPC or PC) to the ambassadors or their guards to be dealt with.

Radiant Dragon will probably employ a similar model, even more strictly enforced in all likelihood. Less injunction against killing, but rule of law will lie strictly within the purvue of the higher nobility where PC's are concerned I'm betting

[mendoza]

I'll reply more later, when I'm not rushing to work, but I think you make a good point in distinguishing between "should be allowed to do" and "should do"? What I had in mind when framing the questions was more along the lines of "should be able to do with the reasonable expectation that people's heads won't explode OOG and that there will not be excessively unpleasant OOG reactions".

More later, when I've had time to compose a thoughtful reply worthy of your comment.

[arianhwyvar]

Another thought:

I think this issue gets back, like so many other things, to questions of expectation and communication.

A huge thing that breaks people's fun is having their expectations confounded: the world works this way, this is what is considered appropriate IG behavior, this is what is considered appropriate player behavior.... What really gets people upset is when there's a mismatch in reasonable expectation of an NPC response and what actually happens, and/or when there's a mismatch in reasonable expectation of a PC response and what actually happens. If the staff makes clear that a vicious and brutal regime frowns on unpatriotic talk, and PCs loudly and publicly disparage the monarch in front of the tax collector, the believability of the game and the feeling of trust the PCs have in the background material they were given will probably suffer. Similarly, if a setting is presented with 'people who follow this dark cult are deemed evil by all and sundry and destroyed', it is understandable that people may be upset if