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

[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 do, and to not do it would be not playing the character properly, but some or many other characters don't agree that it is the right thing to do? In that case, you have two or more legitimately conflicting versions of what is the "right" thing to do. Just because some characters are horrified or offended by something that another character does, doesn't mean that it is objectively wrong or necessarily deserving of punishment.

One person's fun may sometimes result in another person's plotline getting stepped on, even inadvertently, but while that may be annoying for the person who got stepped on, it doesn't necessarily mean it was morally wrong to do so. On an Out of game level, I think it's important to make the distinction between the player who takes action that may have adverse effect on other players, but it's in-character and for legitimate character reasons, and That Guy who doesn't really care about the integrity of the game and just likes to screw things up and cause trouble on the principle that it would be more "fun" to do so.

Of course, in-character, you may not be able to make that distinction. As for remedies to egregious conduct by PCs, I find this an interesting phenomenon. (And seeing how a game can totally break down ino howling chaos when there's no defined system of justice also makes me feel better about my future profession. ;-)) Very few boffer larps ever really successfully integrate a system of justice or conflict resolution into their game, which makes it difficult for PCs to ever successfully punish wrongdoers. Also, in many games, the PCs do not agree on who has or should have the authority to serve as judge and decision makers. Is it PCs? NPCs? PCs of one group but not another? PCs of all groups? I have heard that NERO had some form of "legal code" and punishment by nobles but that it never really worked out well. And I believe that most games either turn egregious conduct over to NPCs (as, for example, I might expect to happen in Radiant Dragon, which is based on feudal Japan), or work out some form of more or less chaotic mob rule by the PCs.

Personally, (as the law student mendoza was trying desperately not to be) I'd be very interested in seeing a game develop some kind of actual, simple, workable system of conflict resolution. What kind of system could there be that would handle both conduct that violated some agreed-upon norm or law, and would also be able to resolve those situations where two players disagreed on what is actually the "right" course of action?

[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.

As for Mob rule and the drastic fallout that frequently results, IMHO that fault lies with two parties:

- First, the players for failing to create their own rule of law, or at least a standing council for dealing with severe infractions.

- Second, the plot committees for almost universally encouraging and strongly rewarding evil players for their actions with strong plot arcs and direct access to a great deal of personal power.

This second issue makes it VERY important that players develop a system for finding and - quite frankly - savagely destroying Evil or even openly Chaotic characters in their midst. It's not remotely worth the risk of putting up with them.

For those of you who enjoy playing evil or disruptively chaotic characters? I have no problem with that - you keep my life interesting - but I suggest you keep as low a profile as you can manage, because some day the rest of the players will turn on you and wipe you off the face of the earth - and it will inevitably be one day later than they should have done it.