PVP and OOC Raises

[DM Hawk]

Hail Cormyrians!


The DM Team would like to hear your thoughts about an idea concerning OOC Raises and how they might be used.

One element of adventure story telling that is not easily achieved in NWN is being knocked out or beaten without being killed.

There is a mechanical system when a character is between 0 and -9 HP. But far more often, a character will go from low HP to dead. It is usually when a low level character fighting against a low level monster where the 0 to -9 HP functionality (i.e. beaten but not necessarily dead, with a chance to recover) comes into play regularly. This functionality is not utilized often in PVP, especially with characters above low levels.

Therefore, most PVP's are to the death, unless a character yields and it is up to the victor to accept or not.

I've always winced inwardly when I hear characters say something like "So and So killed me three times."

It's part of the package that characters die and return from death frequently in NWN. But wouldn't it more smooth to say "So and so defeated me" or "I've been beaten by so and so" or "I've lost to so and so three times"?

When the OOC Raise comes into play with PVP...where the victor elects to OOC Raise the killed Player Character at his or her own expense, for the sake of story telling perhaps the victor should be encouraged to send a tell to the defeated character's player similar to:

"Your character was defeated, injured to the brink of death, and left on the field of battle."

In other words, the OOC Raise becomes a mechanism by which the defeated character didn't die, but was instead beaten to the brink of death (at the mercy and cost of the victor) for the stake of better story telling.

Some rules and guidelines would have to be considered to keep things realistic following the PVP and to protect the victor (who was a good sport to offer a voluntary OOC Raise) from immediate revenge.

A waiting time of at least a few minutes would be needed before the defeated character could act at all and a ruling that defeated characters must wait at least a week before trying for a rematch (which must be done in character), as an acknowledgment of defeat and the time it takes to mentally and physically prepare to face the victor again (if at all)

If a character benefits from an OOC Raise and proves to be a bad sport about it and tries to get Unrealistically swift revenge...well, next time there probably won't be an OOC Raise for him/her and rightfully so.

The following show down at the appropriate time would be "You beat me last time, but I'm here to settle the score" instead of "You killed me last time, but I'm here to settle the score."

Would it be better for story telling and give more IC credibility to OOC Raises given out of good sportsmanship of the victor?

What do you guys think? Do the benefits outweigh the costs?


PS - Another example:

Unsmooth:

Character A: "Kethoth is in the Wailing Wheel."
Character B: "Really? I killed him last week."

More smooth:

Character A: "Kethoth is in the Wailing Wheel."
Character B: "Hah really? Man, I put the Spank down on his ass last tenday so bad. I bet he can barely sit up straight!"

[Vortex]

Dec 3, 2009 14:48:24 GMT -5 DM Hawk said:

Unsmooth:

Character A: "Kethoth is in the Wailing Wheel."
Character B: "Really? I killed him last week."

More smooth:

Character A: "Kethoth is in the Wailing Wheel."
Character B: "Hah really? Man, I put the Spank down on his ass last tenday so bad. I bet he can barely sit up straight!"

LOL.

Anyway, sounds good to me. It's always kind of grinded on me as well that you "kill" someone but they're chatting you up in the inn the same day, heh.

[easternenterprise]

It certainly sounds nice...

A fear that comes into mind, what if the person who was defeated (and not killed, therefore not succumbing to memory loss), goes to the authority and tells them the story (sends in their logs)? Is there going to be an accomodation for evil characters?

If my character Sharteel, can go around laying the smack down on people without having to worry about the law all the time....then ooooooh boy, Rastan better watch his scaley ass ;D

I hope its understood if evil doers fear the law and what it can be done with them. The laws aren't exactly gentle all the time.

So again, how can I be assured that my character wont be ratted-out immediatly by the PC she just 'defeated', who could send in the logs? Would a single witness resort in my character being put on trial?

Another thing is, I have made characters that cant raise the dead because of spellclass restrictions.

[iangallowglas]

I like this idea. I knew a character killed by another character multiple times. IMO the RP suffered because of it, and this approach would have helped a lot.

[ShadowCatJen]

That or someone finally gets a subdual system working on FRC. That tends to solve a lot of problems in regards to dying when having a CvC situation. Most CvC situations can then fall under a subdual fight where death and OOC raises don't need to happen. If it's a to-the-death fight then the players better have had a really good RP reason for their PCs wanting to kill one another.

.... though subdual has been suggested before so... *shrug*

[Grozer]

Dec 3, 2009 14:56:59 GMT -5 @easternenterprise said:

It certainly sounds nice...

A fear that comes into mind, what if the person who was defeated (and not killed, therefore not succumbing to memory loss), goes to the authority and tells them the story (sends in their logs)? Is there going to be an accomodation for evil characters?

If my character Sharteel, can go around laying the smack down on people without having to worry about the law all the time....then ooooooh boy, Rastan better watch his scaley ass ;D

I hope its understood if evil doers fear the law and what it can be done with them. The laws aren't exactly gentle all the time.

So again, how can I be assured that my character wont be ratted-out immediatly by the PC she just 'defeated', who could send in the logs? Would a single witness resort in my character being put on trial?

Another thing is, I have made characters that cant raise the dead because of spellclass restrictions.

I believe this is critical to the answers you seek. In some instances the PvP kill is an evil character trying stop the spread of information that shouldnt have been heard or someone stumbling into where they shouldnt have been. If the OOC raise is given, would memory loss be part of the mix? Because if not assuming it wasnt an agreed upon dual, the murderer can be singled out and becomes subjected to the penalties, including the OOC one of losing 250 XP per level not to mention any attempt to "tie up" lose ends becomes pointless. Granted PvP isnt the only answer in many of these situations but sometimes it is... I would just like to understand how it would handled in that scenario.

[Grozer]

Dec 3, 2009 15:01:34 GMT -5 iangallowglas said:

I like this idea. I knew a character killed by another character multiple times. IMO the RP suffered because of it, and this approach would have helped a lot.

Death from PvP is supposed to result in memory loss so I would assume whoever is saying that so and so killed him/her multiple times was done so with some witnesses informing them of being 'killed'. Then again your example equally applies to any encounter, it does sound strange to say, I was killed by frosties on a couple of occasions. On the other hand this is a fantasy setting where the power to bring someone back from the dead is possible so is it really that far out of character to talk about how many times someone has been raised? Dont really expect an answer just food for thought...

[DM Hawk]

These are good questions so far and we don't necessarily have all the right answers yet.

Please keep the juices flowing and let us know your questions, comments, and thoughts.

[EDM Entori]

Dec 3, 2009 14:48:24 GMT -5 DM Hawk said:

Hail Cormyrians!


The DM Team would like to hear your thoughts about an idea concerning OOC Raises and how they might be used.

One element of adventure story telling that is not easily achieved in NWN is being knocked out or beaten without being killed.

There is a mechanical system when a character is between 0 and -9 HP. But far more often, a character will go from low HP to dead. It is usually when a low level character fighting against a low level monster where the 0 to -9 HP functionality (i.e. beaten but not necessarily dead, with a chance to recover) comes into play regularly. This functionality is not utilized often in PVP, especially with characters above low levels.

Therefore, most PVP's are to the death, unless a character yields and it is up to the victor to accept or not.

I've always winced inwardly when I hear characters say something like "So and So killed me three times."

It's part of the package that characters die and return from death frequently in NWN. But wouldn't it more smooth to say "So and so defeated me" or "I've been beaten by so and so" or "I've lost to so and so three times"?

When the OOC Raise comes into play with PVP...where the victor elects to OOC Raise the killed Player Character at his or her own expense, for the sake of story telling perhaps the victor should be encouraged to send a tell to the defeated character's player similar to:

"Your character was defeated, injured to the brink of death, and left on the field of battle."

In other words, the OOC Raise becomes a mechanism by which the defeated character didn't die, but was instead beaten to the brink of death (at the mercy and cost of the victor) for the stake of better story telling.

Some rules and guidelines would have to be considered to keep things realistic following the PVP and to protect the victor (who was a good sport to offer a voluntary OOC Raise) from immediate revenge.

A waiting time of at least a few minutes would be needed before the defeated character could act at all and a ruling that defeated characters must wait at least a week before trying for a rematch (which must be done in character), as an acknowledgment of defeat and the time it takes to mentally and physically prepare to face the victor again (if at all)

If a character benefits from an OOC Raise and proves to be a bad sport about it and tries to get Unrealistically swift revenge...well, next time there probably won't be an OOC Raise for him/her and rightfully so.

The following show down at the appropriate time would be "You beat me last time, but I'm here to settle the score" instead of "You killed me last time, but I'm here to settle the score."

Would it be better for story telling and give more IC credibility to OOC Raises given out of good sportsmanship of the victor?

What do you guys think? Do the benefits outweigh the costs?


PS - Another example:

Unsmooth:

Character A: "Kethoth is in the Wailing Wheel."
Character B: "Really? I killed him last week."

More smooth:

Character A: "Kethoth is in the Wailing Wheel."
Character B: "Hah really? Man, I put the Spank down on his ass last tenday so bad. I bet he can barely sit up straight!"

death is not treated as seriously as we like to think, here as it is in other places, because we have to spend so much time, developing our characters to an higher level, or even to a good character that people feel begrudged that their character would be perma killed.

the way I see it. because it takes so long for story arcs to come through FRC, that when people die they are less likely to perma kill, which limits the story.

how this applies?

Well in PvP. if characters die, in story making fashion they would become a martyr or an defeated evil. something would give other people movement.

Unlike well.. so and so died,.. but he suddenly reappeared later (respawn)

well... there goes your story.


however...

so and so died, but his healer, the cleric of so and so, did a ritual to bring him back. (if exagerated with RP that raising takes more then a scroll, in the case of PVP) then that would also give to the story.



as far as giving the ooc raise. sure it's player friendly but theres little development in your story. and people still feel bad that they got killed so they would try to do many arcs to find a way to figure out you did it, instead of letting it go.

the old respawn button is more clear cut, character looses his memory to awake within the healers...


on another server a respawn was the "divine interevention" and you had to have an explanation to why your back.

mages used to RP they had a contingency that sent them far far away.. to be healed before the last strike. (here it could be applied that they spell has a side effect of memory loss)



bottom line:

it isn't about the ooc raise, or respawn. It's how your Rp it.

I see hawks original post to be about how you rp death, not so much about the raises.


It also goes back a little bit to how people RP honor, in our semi feudal society, and pride.

people who get defeated in a duel, who would actually walk away after being defeated still chiding those that won. I think death should be more rare... raising scrolls needed less often... or having them less available (wouldn't work with the way the server currently works)

or people would need to go through more hoops.. it would give clerics more value I think.


not to be the baron of bad news, (especially as I have a special item that would be on limited days after this)... but those raising wands/ etc. are not unlimited use to our charging system.

Which is great because healing so damn high... but thats proably food for thought.

[Lady Frost]

I think the act of using the scroll should imply that they were beaten so badly that they simply are not capable of recalling the recent situation (30 mins RL time).

I do however stand behind my long-held belief of not giving OOC raises due to reasons posted in the thread:Fear and Pain.

[Savoie Faire]

If my character Sharteel, can go around laying the smack down on people without having to worry about the law all the time....then ooooooh boy, Rastan better watch his scaley ass

The concept presented here does not in any way circumvent existing PvP rules. The law still applies to all PC's and remains unchanged, including loss of exp from execution when the authorities catch you.

What this does is to allow players an opportunity to roleplay a little more realistically. Instead of dying and having to respawn, your opponent can choose to give you a raise, and in the interest of fair play the raised character is expected to avoid just jumping up and re-attacking the victor.

The OOC mechanic presented here is not a free pass to PK. Your PC cannot avoid punishment for your acts if they were illegal, and you will still be held to account for any rules violated even if you do give a raise to your defeated opponent.

Additionally, no one is required to raise their victim, it's a choice some players may take to foster good play with their victim/s.

[Lady Frost]

With the way it is stated though, using a scroll and thus leaving them 'beaten badly' would not be considered murder, correct?

[easternenterprise]

Dec 3, 2009 17:10:17 GMT -5 Savoie Faire said:

If my character Sharteel, can go around laying the smack down on people without having to worry about the law all the time....then ooooooh boy, Rastan better watch his scaley ass

The concept presented here does not in any way circumvent existing PvP rules. The law still applies to all PC's and remains unchanged, including loss of exp from execution when the authorities catch you.

What this does is to allow players an opportunity to roleplay a little more realistically. Instead of dying and having to respawn, your opponent can choose to give you a raise, and in the interest of fair play the raised character is expected to avoid just jumping up and re-attacking the victor.

The OOC mechanic presented here is not a free pass to PK. Your PC cannot avoid punishment for your acts if they were illegal, and you will still be held to account for any rules violated even if you do give a raise to your defeated opponent.

Additionally, no one is required to raise their victim, it's a choice some players may take to foster good play with their victim/s.

Grozer and Zoe are touching in on my overall issue

We're being asked to be courteous on our OOC raises. Alright, now can there be a courtesy asked on beaten PC's to not immediatly report themselves to the authorities? Would they still incure enough head injury to forget what happened?

Otherwise as Grozer said...Whats the point? To let your enemy get away, only to have your character be turned in by a single report...Yeah..I dont mind loosing, but that's not exactly fun to play under this underlying fear

[Savoie Faire]

Dec 3, 2009 17:15:33 GMT -5 Lady Frost said:

With the way it is stated though, using a scroll and thus leaving them 'beaten badly' would not be considered murder, correct?

Correct. That would be assault, and the victim would have no cause for claiming memory loss, both by the rules of raising and because this OOC raise is an OOC mechanic.

[Lady Frost]

Would all OOC raises now be considered this mechanic?

[DM Hawk]

Something needs to be clarified.

Providing an OOC raise of any sort is a voluntary action. It is good form, but voluntary. It is a good gesture that should be respected.

Receiving an OOC Raise is a gift, not an entitlement. However, some players may not wish to receive an OOC Raise (there are a few out there). That wish needs to be respected too.

This idea is about suggesting an alternate RP use of the voluntary OOC Raise that one player might give another. It isn't about dictating that all OOC Raises must follow a pattern. It also isn't about finding some way to commit mass muder with impugnity.

The standards and quality stipulated for PVP on FRC should not be changed for this suggestion one bit. If the spirit of the idea is observed, it should be a non-issue.

If Player A kills Player B and decides to offer a voluntary OOC Raise, then this idea asks Player A to consider whether or not this fight should have been to the death.

Would my character kill that character over this fight?

There's a lot of possible answers to this question, having moral implications, self-defense, survival of the fittest, or too bad you shouldn't have seen that...

In the end, it is up to Player A to decide whether to offer an OOC Raise or not. This idea is about whether to offer it according to FRC's policy about PVP Deaths (which remains unchanged by this idea, including death and memory loss) or to offere it as a defeat instead of a death, purely for in character and story telling reasons.

If the Defeat option is offered, the guidelines above would apply, as far as when the defeated player can act at all and when he or she may try to claim vengeance if at all. If the Defeat option is offered (and accepted by the defeated character's player), the player character was not killed and the memory loss should not be required.

The idea merely gives the parties involved, if they are in agreement, the ability to call the battle a defeat for the loser instead of a death.

Please keep the thoughts and questions coming!


Thanks to all who have repsonded so far.

[Grozer]

Dec 3, 2009 19:03:12 GMT -5 DM Hawk said:

Something needs to be clarified.

Providing an OOC raise of any sort is a voluntary action. It is good form, but voluntary. It is a good gesture that should be respected.

Receiving an OOC Raise is a gift, not an entitlement. However, some players may not wish to receive an OOC Raise (there are a few out there). That wish needs to be respected too.

Just thought I would comment that the above somewhat implies that NOT giving an OOC raise is not good form. I would guess you didnt intend that but it sort of says "Hey this is the way we would like to see you play it." But there are very valid reasons for not offering OOC raises.

Hawk the way you lay it out here seems pretty well thought out, but keep in mind going down this path ALMOST guarantees you would need to decide/agree up front before the fight occurs.

Lastly I would just add that I actually prefer giving an ooc raise. I just think it takes a little of the sting out of the confrontation and makes the 'event' more about the RP then about the fight. That being said as I already mention I some reservations about doing so.

[DM Hawk]

Dec 3, 2009 19:28:10 GMT -5 Grozer said:

Dec 3, 2009 19:03:12 GMT -5 DM Hawk said:

Something needs to be clarified.

Providing an OOC raise of any sort is a voluntary action. It is good form, but voluntary. It is a good gesture that should be respected.

Receiving an OOC Raise is a gift, not an entitlement. However, some players may not wish to receive an OOC Raise (there are a few out there). That wish needs to be respected too.

Just thought I would comment that the above somewhat implies that NOT giving an OOC raise is not good form. I would guess you didnt intend that but it sort of says "Hey this is the way we would like to see you play it." But there are very valid reasons for not offering OOC raises.

Hawk the way you lay it out here seems pretty well thought out, but keep in mind going down this path ALMOST guarantees you would need to decide/agree up front before the fight occurs.

Lastly I would just add that I actually prefer giving an ooc raise. I just think it takes a little of the sting out of the confrontation and makes the 'event' more about the RP then about the fight. That being said as I already mention I some reservations about doing so.

Thanks Grozer, that's right. I did not intend for it to sound like not offering an OOC Raise makes one a less than good player. Not at all.

There can be good reasons (from a player perspective) not to provide one. One such reason might be in the middle of a DM event where PVP is involved and the stakes are high. It would make little sense in that context. Another could be that the PVP took place in a well traveled area and the victorious player's character feels it's better story for the body to be found dead rather than alive (that might have been the purpose of the PVP).

Some folks believe, without malice, one should take their lumps, and that's what they do themselves.

I guess I tried to cover that off with the 'gift, not an entitlement' bit. As in, a player should feel rather lucky when receiving one.

A player should not be judged based on whether or not they provide an OOC Raise after a PVP. The defeated player may not know or understand the reasons why, but should try give fellow players a little benefit of the doubt before judging.

[Lokarn]

My opinion, as my assassin, I would never give an OOC raise unless it was understood that the ooc raise was given ONLY because I was unable to find a way to involve the player in the rp leading up to the kill. I used that as a way to not penalize the player. I was only able to use that once though, most players tend to be upset at a sudden death to them, even when I had been stalking them for days, then for hours following them into a dungeon to make the kill.

IF the OOC ....raise is meant to suggest you didn't intend to kill the person in the first place then fine, no memory loss needed.

IF the idea is really to lessen the Player to player hard feelings, then an OOC raise should come with the same memory loss as actual pvp death.

Perhaps those involved in PvP can choose to discuss these points among themselves, and decide once one of them has perished.

[ConcreteSequential]

IF the OOC ....raise is meant to suggest you didn't intend to kill the person in the first place then fine, no memory loss needed.

IF the idea is really to lessen the Player to player hard feelings, then an OOC raise should come with the same memory loss as actual pvp death.

Perhaps those involved in PvP can choose to discuss these points among themselves, and decide once one of them has perished

I think this is a very good guideline. JMO

[Munroe]

In general I don't like OOC raises myself, or the encouragement of them. The only time and OOC raise makes sense is when the character wasn't supposed to die to begin with.

Like an "OOC: Oh, crap, dude, I didn't mean to kill you while we were sparing!" situation. That I can see. Raise the guy and everybody pretends nobody died. Nobody was trying to kill each other, it was just an accident. Of course that can also be handled in-character. "Woah! What happened?!" "Dude, I totally just killed you! I'm glad I bought that Raise Dead scroll from that hot cleric that was in town!" "Woah! I was dead?!" "Yeah, dude!" "That is so bogus!" "Totally, dude."

But if you mean to kill someone, I just don't like the soft way out of the OOC raise. If you want to make sure the person gets Raised and you can flag a DM (a good idea anyway if you're in PvP), you can dump the body where it can be found for someone else to Raise it in-character.

You can ransom a corpse back to its friends, you can ... find a way to get the person Raised in character.

It's much cooler than just beating them to death then giving them an OOC Raise that didn't really happen. In fact, that whole sensation extends to the whole fight and death. You get in a fight, you get killed, you get OOC Raised, you walk away and just pretend nothing happened, because as far as your character knows, nothing happened. There's nothing to remember. You don't remember the fight, you don't remember waking up in the healer's house, you just go on your way, oblivious and as far as your RP is concerned, the fight didn't exist.

That sounds pretty lame if you ask me.

[ancientempathy]

Dec 3, 2009 22:44:12 GMT -5 Munroe said:

It's much cooler than just beating them to death then giving them an OOC Raise that didn't really happen. In fact, that whole sensation extends to the whole fight and death. You get in a fight, you get killed, you get OOC Raised, you walk away and just pretend nothing happened, because as far as your character knows, nothing happened. There's nothing to remember. You don't remember the fight, you don't remember waking up in the healer's house, you just go on your way, oblivious and as far as your RP is concerned, the fight didn't exist.

That sounds pretty lame if you ask me.

Or, you can make up a story...?

Other than that I pretty much agree with Munroe. I completly forgot about asking a DM for assistance; especially to transport the dead body somewhere. that's an interesting suggestion.

[Savoie Faire]

I agree with both sides of this argument, so it's hard for me to comment on this topic without adding to the confusion.

I'd like to discuss purpose for a moment.

What is the purpose of an OOC raise in general, and what is the purpose of Hawk's proposed system?

In general, OOC raises allow players to avoid the OOC penalty for death. It should never remove any IC penalty for death. So in a typical OOC raise event, the victor may offer a raise to the vanquished who will still have died, and the vanquished should show appreciation for the raise by roleplaying the event exactly as though he had to respawn.

In Hawk's specific example, however, the purpose is not to eliminate the penalty for death, but to correct a game mechanic which does not allow for less than lethal combat. The player receiving such a raise should not have died!

If your intent was to kill the other PC, you may still offer an OOC raise if the other player agrees to it and if the other player agrees to roleplay as though he died and had to respawn.

If your intent was to not kill the other PC, you may offer an OOC raise under Hawk's plan, where the victim did not die but was rendered 'hors de combat', and therefore does not have to follow any of the death rules, because he did not die IC.

Either of these options requires the players to discuss the matter and reach an agreement. If the players disagree then the default position is, the dead guy's dead and has to respawn or wait for a friend to IC raise him.

[EDM Entori]

Munroes comment above is pretty valid.

Even with a respawn..

if you kill someone Johnny can keep on going no matter what, because the death is unknown.


I'd like to see players take more of a break with one character after a pvp death.. especially if there was no way to be found.

gives a little bit more realism. then they wake up at a healers a week later after being raised, 2 days after they died, and had to endure a week of healing..

I also like to see healing rped, but thats off topic.

[ashaffer]

I offer OOC raises simply because while it was my intention to have my PC kill another PC, it is generally not my intention to have the other PC suffer a respawn penalty from it... And I fully expect that unless me, and the other player, specifically decide not to have the PvP amnesia take effect, it does. This is not to say that there are not a few extremely rare instances where I wouldn't offer an OOC raise, but that's for me to know, and the other party to find out.

What I think needs to be addressed is the distinct lack of respect given to the seriousness of initiating a PvP in the first place… If you don't have a completely valid reason why you're PvPing someone, then maybe you shouldn't do it. This, I feel, is the basis of the bad feelings that can come from PvP. You shouldn't initiate a PvP simply because you're bored, evil, good, or have come upon a PC by pure happenstance, and decide on the spur of the moment to kill them.

A completely valid reason is firmly grounded in RP. RP of the conflict between the two PCs, not because the one initiating it decided to find someone, anyone, to kill. If there is no valid reason, then is it at all surprising that the player whose PC was PvPed would be upset?

And the tit, for tat, killings that come from some PvPs quickly become very tiresome. They cheapen PvP to such an extent that it's nothing but a joke. PvP shouldn't be treated as a lark, but as something that is the absolute culmination of the conflict between two PCs.

[Lokarn]

I disagree with you to an extent Ashafer, an assassin is paid to kill others, being an assassin here for over 2.5 years I have been paid by roughly 15 characters to kill others.

I do my best to allow others a small chance to detect the stalking, aside from that I kill for the gold, and that -is- the rp behind it.

Most times I have been hired it has been by PC's that could do the job just the same, but they don't want others to know it was them doing the killing, so I am paid, and the task is done.

So while most times you are correct to want a lot of rp behind a killing, sometimes it would make no sense. Onisha was not a Wynter type assassin, she was silent, unseen, and mostly unknown. A true assassin.

Unfortunately, no DM's were interested enough to take up my time with killing NPC's so I took jobs to kill PCs, most times there were hard feelings, even when I tried to show some sort of warning in RP. I would not expect an assassin to tell you ooc that you were a target, I did that once, amazingly that PC never played for long when I would log on to look for them. It just doesn't work out like that.

[Lady Frost]

In regards to assassins, the RP should be with the victim and the person paying for the hit. The responsibility falls on the person paying or asking for the hit to have the good RP reason, not the assassin. Hopefully the victim's player at least knows why it happened OOC'ly. But, they may not.

In the overall scheme of things, I think we all assume that we are talking about legitimate PvP with an RP reason. Nobody is arguing that PvP is ok without a good reason.

Honestly, I don't think PvP happens enough on the sever as it is. Everyone seems to put up with everyone else. It's unrealistic to me. Hopefully with the change of execution XP something more will happen.

[Charon's Claw]

From what I've seen few know the value of a fair duel anymore. Dueling is a grand way to settle differences, especially between warriors. If ya can't back your mouth.. don't run it.

[The Supreme Watcher]

Dec 4, 2009 16:47:11 GMT -5 ashaffer said:

I offer OOC raises simply because while it was my intention to have my PC kill another PC, it is generally not my intention to have the other PC suffer a respawn penalty from it... And I fully expect that unless me, and the other player, specifically decide not to have the PvP amnesia take effect, it does. This is not to say that there are not a few extremely rare instances where I wouldn't offer an OOC raise, but that's for me to know, and the other party to find out.

What I think needs to be addressed is the distinct lack of respect given to the seriousness of initiating a PvP in the first place… If you don't have a completely valid reason why you're PvPing someone, then maybe you shouldn't do it. This, I feel, is the basis of the bad feelings that can come from PvP. You shouldn't initiate a PvP simply because you're bored, evil, good, or have come upon a PC by pure happenstance, and decide on the spur of the moment to kill them.

A completely valid reason is firmly grounded in RP. RP of the conflict between the two PCs, not because the one initiating it decided to find someone, anyone, to kill. If there is no valid reason, then is it at all surprising that the player whose PC was PvPed would be upset?

And the tit, for tat, killings that come from some PvPs quickly become very tiresome. They cheapen PvP to such an extent that it's nothing but a joke. PvP shouldn't be treated as a lark, but as something that is the absolute culmination of the conflict between two PCs.

I'll respond to this paragraph by paragraph.

Firstly, your policy is one of personal preference and taste to the player, and not the character when you decide to offer OOC raises to some people and not to others. I encourage you to take a blanket opinion on the necessity or lack thereof of OOC raises, because as you're doing it now (case by case, or in another term, player by player), you will foster negativity and hostility amongst the people you do not offer the same leg up.

I disagree heavily that there is a large disrespect to what PvP stands for. PvP is two characters fighting each other. That is all it is. The RP behind it is not PvP, it is RP, and as such is a completely different subject all together. If I'm playing a Champion of Torm, who has dedicated his life to eradicating the blight of evil, and I get into conflict with a Banite Cleric who is devoted to enslaving and dominating all humanity, then we have each chosen our RP before time. We knew when we created these characters what kind of conflicts we would get into. PvP has nothing to do with that. It is no more and no less than two characters fighting.

This is a PvP server. If someone wants to get upset at being PvP'd, I encourage them to find servers that are less grounded in "fantasy realities" such as good fighting evil, rather than tolerating (read: accepting. I'm looking at you, Isinhold) it. This, in my opinion, offers less respect than should be offered to the gravity of the world FRC tries to bring to life. People die, respawns happen. Stories here take years to form. Gaining the XP lost from a respawn takes a week. Sometimes, what seems like a completely valid reason to one person (i.e.: "He stole my gold, I'm going to gut him!") may not to the other person (i.e.: "Jesus, man! I just took a few hundred gold, don't freak out about it!"). This is why we have DMs who oversee these interactions when possible.

And to your last paragraph... ever heard of a rivalry? Artemis PvP's Drizzt like nine times. Garum continually fights Lance and Elvewyn. It's great fun, and if people don't understand that, then that's okay. Rivalries and conflict are what make our characters in this world, what form our relationships in the game world, and a rivalry can bring players together, rather than push them away, if people accept that you win some and lose some - but you can always take another shot. In this, PvP is not the culmination of your story, but it is a series of continuous rising actions and climaxes - your character should never have a falling action in this game unless you're retiring it.

[The Supreme Watcher]

As a footnote to my other, much more meaty post, I will say this: PvP is a universal constant for places that allow characters to use all nine of the alignments. If a server has a policy of only allowing good and neutral characters, then PvP will be much less common. However, if you allow people to make champions of good, and allow people to make bastions of evil, then you are inviting people to create in-game conflicts. When a character's entire focus is the destruction and battle of evil or good, and they come across someone with the diametric opposite alignment but the same purpose, there is no other solution than PvP. One of these characters will establish dominance. It is the way of the fantasy world we play in.

FRC has made massive strides in removing the negative connotations many RPers have of PvP, and has turned it instead into a common, but well-handled and rewarding experience for both parties in the conflict. I actually encourage more groups of goods (i.e.: elves) and more groups of evils (i.e.: the necromancers) to come into larger conflicts, possibly even party-versus-party, or even guild wars.

If you want to see PvP that means something in your game world, you have to find a way to enjoy it, reward it, and tie it into the grand scheme of things. The first step is to stop looking at PvP as an avoidable, unnecessary dick move on a player level, and begin looking at it from the perspective of your character. When you take it into consideration as such, you begin to see it not as two character sheets being laid on the table and dice being thrown at each other, but as a fantasy dynamic that offers more credibility to the environment we, as a community, have tried to produce with this module.

Maybe this post was as beefy as the previous. Oops.