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

[vastin]

Interesting. The last thing I would normally want to do is talk to another player about something like this OOG. I find that's where things tend to get ugly. Not that they can't get ugly IG, but at least there you retain the barrier of IG/OOG to rely on.

I would almost always prefer to confront a character IG about their behavior and treat it as an In Game problem - even if I suspect there might be OOG issues behind it.

Only if I knew someone very, very well would I consider discussing something personally problematic in the game in an OOG setting.

You see, OOG I lack the option of running the bastard through if I don't like the direction the conversation is taking... ;)

[mendoza]

I think talking about it OOG can be a good thing in a LARP, too. It would probably need to be after the fact, which wouldn't necessarily help in every situation (like if you perm someone). I also would be more likely to do so with a friend (eg "ryxander, you okay with the fact that I led a posse after your PC and chased you through the woods for hours?" and she could say "yes, mendoza, but those limericks about me which you extemporized during the chase were a bit much"). I wouldn't feel comfortable having that conversation with just anyone, and the catch is that most of the people with whom I *would* feel comfortable are either less likely to play a character who would do something to cause my character to take action, or less likely to take my reaction poorly.

But I do agree with your point that even if the entire interaction is IG, there still are OOG feelings which really can't be ignored, even if you're trying to keep any unpleasantness from spilling over OOG.

[sithlorddarren]

Hrm.

Now I feel like a huge choad. It was bad form for me to post in such a heated state. I honestly feel as though I've now seen both sides of the coin, though, and for that I thank all of you. I understand both points of view and, while I still don't support the Banishment thing, I do see if/when/why/how it might or might not be necessary.

Again, I apologize. I hit the "post comment" button too quickly I think.

[mendoza]

Please don't feel like a choad. You raised an important issue -- once about which lots of people have some very good things to say (as evidenced by the plethora of excellent comments to this post). This is a topic that has interested (and concerned) me for a long time. I'm glad you brought it up.

Since you're one of the rare people who has been on both sides of the coin, what do you think? What are your thoughts on the IG consequences for player actions? Or taking those controversial actions in the first place?

(as a side note, I really wish I weren't at work and could respond to all of these posts instead of trying to sneak in a stray comment when no one's looking).

[sithlorddarren]

Well, defining banishment would be the first order of business. I assume that, by banishment, they mean "If we see you. We'll kill you." This would make life horribly difficult for the PC in question, but not impossible. It changes their game dramatically, forcing them to either live life in hiding or find ways to exonorate/redeem themselves in the eyes of the banishers. The problem, and the basis of the moral dilemma, is that while IG it makes complete and perfect sense, OOG, it takes the fun away from the banished. It says to the banished, "You're not part of the cool club

[arianhwyvar]

I'm a bit confused by the whole thing, because I thought in the setting it was strongly set up that in the eyes of the White Court, death cleansed someone of crimes. And that while some Elsheans find 'mere death' insufficient if someone can come back to life (which is why the Elshean writ exists, for cases when the crimes are so significant that you really have to make the death 'count', since you aren't supposed to kill someone twice for the same offense), that that is not the White Court majority position.

I'm sort of getting the impression that especially since the death system has changed, players have somewhat begun to feel that death doesn't have as much of a punch, and so are less ok with having a single (non-writed) death make up for a PC crime, even if that would be perfectly appropriate in the setting.

Do you think that is part of what is going on?

Re: continued from above...

[arianhwyvar]

Yeah

[ryxander]

Some excellent thoughts here! Most of mine are just summaries of what other people have said, but some new twists

[ryxander]

Oh, and I might add that PLAYERS are in a much less clear-cut situation, but I'd suggest that they have these responsibilities

[arianhwyvar]

It's funny -- one of the things that's coming to mind now is remembering back at the very beginning of Aralis, I think the second event, conspiratrix's character deliberately death struck Jim T's character on the field in the confusion of a battle. She chose to do it because, as near as I can recall, she hated him because he had unapologetically slaughtered her people in his backstory. Who had done the killing was a topic of IG roleplay and politics for another event or two, and it finally came out and there was much IG arguing over punishment, which worked out in the end to conspiratrix's character effectively being the last rescued in a module and taking a death because of it, which people IG were willing to accept as something roughly ressembling justice