Against the Rules? Yes, No?
Moderator: Gamemasters
Against the Rules? Yes, No?
In one of my recent attempts to extort someone out of some coin I was killed. Problem is after I was killed the killers (27316) and (27289) decided it would be a great idea to put vases at the door to the building and do some "downskilling" in their words. Was it a rule violation of mine demanding money and when I recieved none attacking? Is it against the rules to seal someone inside a building after they have died? You see I think it would have been more reasonable if they sealed me inside to stop me threatening humanity, but they thought it would be better to "downskill" me. I didn't really want to log off because, ghosts simply don't disappear. I have some screenshots and it occured around 15:30 GMT I think. Could you tell me if someone was breaking rules?
There is no rule that says you can't trap a ghost and in my opinion it is fair. If ghost are still subject to the laws of the physical world then they can be trapped like all other things. Even if they are not subject to physical laws, the capturing or entrapment of spirits is still not unheard of. This is one possible way to capture or detain someone after defeating them if you consider turning into a ghost as being unconcious or wounded or something (which I think is a better way to define game death instead of coming back later and saying "You killed me 3 times" which doesn't make much sense).
But when they claimed that they did it for the purpose of "downskilling", they have left the boundaries of roleplaying and broken the rules. In my opinion, this claims turn the situation as the same or parallel to the concept of "powergaming" as in doing it for creating a change in skill level, whether it is an increase or decrease or who you do it on.
If ghosts are not wanted to be subject to the physical laws, then they should be able to pass through walls and objects in future versions, though I can think of difficuties in dealing with bugs from the revival spell, etc.
But when they claimed that they did it for the purpose of "downskilling", they have left the boundaries of roleplaying and broken the rules. In my opinion, this claims turn the situation as the same or parallel to the concept of "powergaming" as in doing it for creating a change in skill level, whether it is an increase or decrease or who you do it on.
If ghosts are not wanted to be subject to the physical laws, then they should be able to pass through walls and objects in future versions, though I can think of difficuties in dealing with bugs from the revival spell, etc.
At least this is a case of very bad roleplay. The player might know that a ghost could be trapped in a room using vases. But my character would never be able to imagine that a vase (an item where he usually puts flowers in!) can be used to ban a lost soul in...
If you want to trap a ghost do it in RP-manner with support of a priest/witch/sorcerer, but if you want a punishment for a character because he breaks the rules, you should better report it to a GM.
That´s my opinion
If you want to trap a ghost do it in RP-manner with support of a priest/witch/sorcerer, but if you want a punishment for a character because he breaks the rules, you should better report it to a GM.
That´s my opinion
With the words from Bror :
Rule 1: RPG (Blocking ghost to reduce skills, has nothing to do with RPG )
Rule 5: Bugs .......
That was standing in another thread.2. Die Regeln, gegen die ihr verstoßen habt, die "nicht existieren" sind:
Regel 1: RPG (Geister mit Kisten blockieren, ....****)
Regel 5: Bugs (Voreile verschaffen durch Geister blockieren)
Rule 1: RPG (Blocking ghost to reduce skills, has nothing to do with RPG )
Rule 5: Bugs .......
This is quite interesting because I am guilty of blocking a ghost as well. I had had things stolen from me three times in about thirty minutes, not cheap items either. Normally I shrug things like this off but three times was pushing it. I chased the thief and asked for the item back but he refused and said I could buy it back. Ten out of ten for cheek 
. I refused to pay and chased him once more. Finally I caught and killed him. Since we were close to the cross I didn't think this was a suitable punishment, so I blocked him and said I would not move until he said he was sorry. Eventually, and I think somewhat sarcastically, he apologised so I let him go. My character is a peacefull man and was ashamed when he realised what he had resorted to. He followed the ghostly thief and, when he had resurected, my character gave him a strong heal then went off to meditate on what he had done. So did I break the rules or was it within RPG bounds?
. I refused to pay and chased him once more. Finally I caught and killed him. Since we were close to the cross I didn't think this was a suitable punishment, so I blocked him and said I would not move until he said he was sorry. Eventually, and I think somewhat sarcastically, he apologised so I let him go. My character is a peacefull man and was ashamed when he realised what he had resorted to. He followed the ghostly thief and, when he had resurected, my character gave him a strong heal then went off to meditate on what he had done. So did I break the rules or was it within RPG bounds?These are just my opionions, nothing more.
1. It was wrong to block the ghost using vases to "downskill them" as this was not RP, this would probably be considered against the rules.
2. Blocking the ghost to make him apologize, on the other hand, does sound RP and probalby wouldn't be considered against the rules.
These are just my opionions.
Now, about trying to extort money... I think that the thought has to go in as to whether this is harrassement, or RP. I wasn't there, so couldn't say. Now, if you ever tried to extort money from my character, you wouldn't live to regret it.
1. It was wrong to block the ghost using vases to "downskill them" as this was not RP, this would probably be considered against the rules.
2. Blocking the ghost to make him apologize, on the other hand, does sound RP and probalby wouldn't be considered against the rules.
These are just my opionions.
Now, about trying to extort money... I think that the thought has to go in as to whether this is harrassement, or RP. I wasn't there, so couldn't say. Now, if you ever tried to extort money from my character, you wouldn't live to regret it.
-
Kathryn Janeway
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 6:19 pm
- Location: Sol System
@Ellaron.
Peacefully?
Why you didn't call your problems to other chars (guards, warriors), who could catch your thief? Why did you kill the thief by your self? I thought you are peacfull.
Generally:
If the thief died, it was punishment enough. Sometime each act must be forgotten. Max., if you die or your opponent dies. You can`t trie to punish a thief again and again to he will say "sorry". Its a light version of PK.
Peacefully?
Why you didn't call your problems to other chars (guards, warriors), who could catch your thief? Why did you kill the thief by your self? I thought you are peacfull.
Generally:
If the thief died, it was punishment enough. Sometime each act must be forgotten. Max., if you die or your opponent dies. You can`t trie to punish a thief again and again to he will say "sorry". Its a light version of PK.
Think of it this way in a more realistic sense. Why is Death a sufficient punishment on an offender who commits a crime? There are many reasons to analyze why punishment is necessary for a criminal act in a society, but for the purpose of this discussion I will say that one of the prime reasons for punishment is to 'prevent the convicted criminal from offending again for a reasonable amount of time'. Death accomplishes this very well because the dead can never commit an offense again, therefore it is theoretically a sufficient punishment.
But in Illarion, "death" does not actually efficiently accomplish this, not even for a reasonable time frame, because the "ghost" can find revival in a few minutes at most. "Death" I say then, is not enough of a punishment for (I will not say for all cases, since the magnitude distribution of offenses hasn't been decided in this society yet) a case where the offender is not sorry for his ways or has a high risk of re-offending.
How then can we deal with these high risk offenders in a world governed with no force that can consistently intervene at a time reasonably close to the immediate time frame to give a suitable punishment for the offender? The law I argue would have to be taken into one's own hands for the immediate time, man to man. I argue that "death" is an unrealistic and unpractical definiton to an entity who KNOWS he can come back and WILL come back. I will redifine terms and no longer consider turning someone into a cloud as "death" but rather as only "unconcious" or "immoblized", and deal with it in a way that I see fit and has not actually violated the wordings of the game rules, may it be confinement for the offender I considered to be "immoblized". What constitutes an offender as high risk and needs to be contained to prevent further danger or disruption, is something that can only be decided by discretion for now I would say.
Sorry if my language is hard to comprehend, but I've been reading too many books lately.
But in Illarion, "death" does not actually efficiently accomplish this, not even for a reasonable time frame, because the "ghost" can find revival in a few minutes at most. "Death" I say then, is not enough of a punishment for (I will not say for all cases, since the magnitude distribution of offenses hasn't been decided in this society yet) a case where the offender is not sorry for his ways or has a high risk of re-offending.
How then can we deal with these high risk offenders in a world governed with no force that can consistently intervene at a time reasonably close to the immediate time frame to give a suitable punishment for the offender? The law I argue would have to be taken into one's own hands for the immediate time, man to man. I argue that "death" is an unrealistic and unpractical definiton to an entity who KNOWS he can come back and WILL come back. I will redifine terms and no longer consider turning someone into a cloud as "death" but rather as only "unconcious" or "immoblized", and deal with it in a way that I see fit and has not actually violated the wordings of the game rules, may it be confinement for the offender I considered to be "immoblized". What constitutes an offender as high risk and needs to be contained to prevent further danger or disruption, is something that can only be decided by discretion for now I would say.
Sorry if my language is hard to comprehend, but I've been reading too many books lately.
Take an instance that happened to a druid.
He is selling potions, someone says they will buy them for 10 gold each. The druid drops the potions, and the other player takes them, and says he has no money. Walks off.
Okay, fine, the druid kills the other player.
The druid is still out the money for the potions. The other player doesn't care, he's a new character, death means nothing to him.
If this was RL, when the druid killed the other person, he would take his potions back. But, in Illarion that does not happen.
So, the druid killing the player means nothing. A crime was committed and effectively gotten away with. What can be done? One death of a noobie player in no way makes up for 900 gold and the loss of potions.
Should, then, the druid continue to kill the other player until he gets his potions back? But that's against the rules of multiple killings.
I would say then that the druid would kill this other player every time he saw him, until he got his potions or money back, but not at the cross.
What say you?
He is selling potions, someone says they will buy them for 10 gold each. The druid drops the potions, and the other player takes them, and says he has no money. Walks off.
Okay, fine, the druid kills the other player.
The druid is still out the money for the potions. The other player doesn't care, he's a new character, death means nothing to him.
If this was RL, when the druid killed the other person, he would take his potions back. But, in Illarion that does not happen.
So, the druid killing the player means nothing. A crime was committed and effectively gotten away with. What can be done? One death of a noobie player in no way makes up for 900 gold and the loss of potions.
Should, then, the druid continue to kill the other player until he gets his potions back? But that's against the rules of multiple killings.
I would say then that the druid would kill this other player every time he saw him, until he got his potions or money back, but not at the cross.
What say you?
Well, that's not quite what I'm trying to say, but it is one solution or way of looking at it. But just by raising the consequences of "death" won't completely solve the realism of them coming back. Rather, I would say it is better to simply eliminate the idea of "death" of slain characters and lowering it to thinking of them as being "unconcious", because in a roleplaying world, it is unrealistic to define something as dead when it's going to come right back a few minutes later.
I believe that there should be a sort of timer after you have died. This would most likely prevent people from coming right back and killing those who killed them. I really don't know about increasing the amount of skills you lose however. Sometimes it can be just downright irritating and you lose a player who was an important part of the community.
I'd also like to stress Serpardum's point, when you "kill" someone in Illarion for thieving you, you can't rummage through his items and get back the item that was stolen from you, no matter what value the items stolen from you were. The victim of the theft still hasn't got back any compensation, only the offender got a small punishment.
In my opinion, after "killing" someone once for the theft of an item, it should be reasonable and legitimate action to revive, or follow them to upon their revival, and then demand your item be returned. If the offender refuses, I think it is a legitimate reason to "kill" him again. it isn't repeated killing because you're not attacking for a reason that can and has already been resolved once, but instead you are attacking for a reason that has not yet been resolved. In rpg context I would say of course that I'm not "killing" him but rather maybe "beating him up" each time.
Of course this opinion is a little biased towards the event of a victim chasing an offender for a stolen item. I can see the ethical problems of my concept when the event is something like a thief threatening someone to hand over their money. Maybe there's some way to find a balance somehow...
In my opinion, after "killing" someone once for the theft of an item, it should be reasonable and legitimate action to revive, or follow them to upon their revival, and then demand your item be returned. If the offender refuses, I think it is a legitimate reason to "kill" him again. it isn't repeated killing because you're not attacking for a reason that can and has already been resolved once, but instead you are attacking for a reason that has not yet been resolved. In rpg context I would say of course that I'm not "killing" him but rather maybe "beating him up" each time.
Of course this opinion is a little biased towards the event of a victim chasing an offender for a stolen item. I can see the ethical problems of my concept when the event is something like a thief threatening someone to hand over their money. Maybe there's some way to find a balance somehow...
there are some workaround without changin anything, geta mage a fighter and a healer to surround the crook, ask him for objects back....he tries to run, prarlise him, he tries to attack 'kill" him.
another way is to input a deat system thats realistic, when one dies he is a corpse he cant do anythin at all, OR hes body is a corpse and hes a cloud.....to return to the normal plain he must submit a paper or somethin to the gods. Well anyways, his corpse can be robbed, mualed more or buried
another way is to input a deat system thats realistic, when one dies he is a corpse he cant do anythin at all, OR hes body is a corpse and hes a cloud.....to return to the normal plain he must submit a paper or somethin to the gods. Well anyways, his corpse can be robbed, mualed more or buried
-
Morgaine Le Fay
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 5:58 am
- Location: Austria - Steiermark
- Contact:
maybe it would be some nice idea when dying the "ghost" would drop his bag - which only he or his killer could pick up - and also would lose some random item out of his belt that everybody could pick up - this bag would be red - since it is blood stained and would not disappear until the ghost himself or his/her kiler would pick it up.
just a thought - though it might be quite hard to implement such a thing in the game - but on the other hand - it would also give other players the chance to see who really killed that person - since only the two contrahents can pick up that bag.
what do you say?
just a thought - though it might be quite hard to implement such a thing in the game - but on the other hand - it would also give other players the chance to see who really killed that person - since only the two contrahents can pick up that bag.
what do you say?
Sorry for the delay in replying, RL strikes again.
@Lennier I've tried to call for assistance before but it only complicates matters. I end up out of pocket and feeling picked on. You are right in that my character is supposed to be peacefull but he does have his limits. Ellaron is constantly struggling with his ideals. As Trollsbane changes so does his point of view. At the moment, although too old to fight well, he's wondering if fighting against evil is not a better idea. I dont know who said it but "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." sums up his thoughts right now.
@Morgaine Le Fay The dropped bag idea sounds good until you apply it to innocent people. If by slaying someone you can take items from them it won't belong before the murder figures start to rise.
@Lennier I've tried to call for assistance before but it only complicates matters. I end up out of pocket and feeling picked on. You are right in that my character is supposed to be peacefull but he does have his limits. Ellaron is constantly struggling with his ideals. As Trollsbane changes so does his point of view. At the moment, although too old to fight well, he's wondering if fighting against evil is not a better idea. I dont know who said it but "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." sums up his thoughts right now.
@Morgaine Le Fay The dropped bag idea sounds good until you apply it to innocent people. If by slaying someone you can take items from them it won't belong before the murder figures start to rise.