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

Re: continued from above...

[arianhwyvar]

Yeah

Re: continued from above...

[vastin]

It's reasonable to have your character react negatively to another character doing things that your character sees as immoral. And in some cases, reasonable for "reacting negatively" is going to mean extreme violence or killing-- after all, these are generally games in which characters are killing things fairly constantly.)

But, boy, does it feel mean to kill someone's character! Or to do something else that you know would make you unhappy if someone did it to your character.My criteria for PKing are pretty straightforwards. If someone is taking intentional actions to harm me or my allies (and by harm I mean life or limb, not generally political or social harm) - then I will kill them without remorse, and possibly without warning

Re: continued from above...

[egowumpus]

My criteria for PKing are pretty straightforwards. If someone is taking intentional actions to harm me or my allies (and by harm I mean life or limb, not generally political or social harm) - then I will kill them without remorse, and possibly without warning.

Is this true across all of your characters?

When you're playing an 'evil' character, or one who does not act in accordance with majority viewpoint in some significant aspect, how does it work out for you when other players react to you in the manner you describe?

Re: continued from above...

[vastin]

For the most part I do not play evil characters in the classical sense of the word, because I would have trouble getting invested in a character that I expect everyone else to want to kill once they figure him out. Not my idea of a good long term investement in character development

Re: continued from above...

[egowumpus]

What about neutral or conflicted characters? Ones that cannot be categorically defined as 'good' or 'evil'? A humanitarian undead, or a paladin blessed of the god(s) who insists on slaughtering thousands of innocents based on the virtue of their birth (such as being born an orc or in a facist country)? In those cases, what is the appropriate course of action in 'dealing' with the character?

In a wholly separate vein, what is appropriate treatment of the players of those characters?

Re: continued from above...

[vastin]

Ah, now we get to the nitty gritty.

I'm not really concerned about the literal 'alignment' of a character - after all, most PC's don't actually have 'Chaotic Evil' written on their card anywhere (though a fair number of NPC's do...)

I base my reaction to people primarily on their actions, with a bit of coloration included by their attitude and choice of words.

Honestly, the most dangerous characters are the ones that act intentionally stupid. This includes playing up some character trait or flaw to a completely unrealistic degree, or completely refusing to learn from experience because it would cause their character's outlook to change

[darkwhimsy]

It's when a player refuses to learn, and change their character in response to the stimuli the world feeds them that I start sharpening my blades.

This may simply be a difference in terminology, but why do you describe that as a process of the player learning, rather than the character? We are talking about in-game stimuli, yes?

I'm fine with someone coming in as a conflicted or tweaked character - even to a dangerous degree. There can be some fun conflicts there - but if they steadfastly refuse to ever resolve or moderate those behaviors then... Gaccckkk!Again, phrasing seems significant to me here. "Moderate" suggests reaching some sort of compromise, while "resolve" implies that a character really oughtn't have any long-term issues