Best Of

Don't think you read my post. That's like saying "don't go to war if you don't want pk." I love pk. I just think people should keep it fun! You are free to disagree, I suppose, but you're acting like I said "don't pk me at all," which is not what I even want. Open pk zones can be very fun when people keep it reasonable.

Iesid said:

Roleplay-based deaths
---------------------
While a roleplayed motive can be a reason to attack another player, it is not carte blanche to kill
whomever you want with impunity. EVERYONE is presumed to be playing a role in Aetolia, and those who
violently inflict their roleplaying on others are subjected to a much higher standard.

Your role defines your motives, not the other way around. If it's not clear to others that you are
immersed in a role, then you effectively aren't. The burden is on you to demonstrate that your
aggression is in-character, not only at the time of a fight, but constantly through your character's
everyday behavior, habits and speech. See HELP ROLEPLAYING for more information.

Hurt feelings only go so far as an excuse for player killing. Failure to apologize is not a good
reason to continue killing someone repeatedly.

I don't know, man. However you slice it, it does sound like a free pass for Iesid and whoever else who was accompanying him to kill whoever they want *in Bamathis' order for doing anything simply because their character now absolutely hates the God after the Farsai betrayal. I think if you want to go down this route, you should make it clear so that people who might have missed the event (read: Evelyn, Mjoll who hasn't logged in for nearly a month now and somehow got enemied for, and others I probably missed) that this is what they're going to expect in the unforeseeable future. If anything, I think it is evidently not IGly clear why - to return to the example - Iesid deigns to go after people simply for hosting one of Bama's sermons, and instead they think you're just doing it because you can, or are griefing. You're having to explain your motivations on the forums. And like the file says, if it's not clear the others that you are immersed in a role, then you effectively aren't. Reverse this for anyone in Ivoln's Order, who you can argue should now bear an effective hatred for those of Haern's Order for sullying the purity of the Earth and almost putting into jeopardy the realm by ignorantly working to weaken the prison of the Sorcerer-Kings with the monolith. They also have got to make it obvious - exceptionally, exceptionally obvious - why they are going after Haern everything or they'll also end up looking like bullies looking for any reason to violently inflict their roleplayingon another.

I think your entire post is just an exercise in moving goalposts. So now, it's OK to have RP cause, but I have to prove that RP cause? I'm sorry, but you're asking me to convince people who are going to willingly take a dissonant position to make sure I don't get to Do The Thing. It's not my responsibility to remedy your unwillingness to accept my character's roleplay in good faith. The only people I have to convince of the sincerity of my roleplay is the admin who will look over a filed issue. I don't have to tell you why my character is motivated to stand against Bamathis. I will gladly share that information IC if someone engages me, but the level of engagement I've got from this has been: * Whirran saying 'good fight' after he and my character went 1-1. * Evelyn sending me OOC tells trying to police my cause and my roleplay without making any attempt at roleplaying with me herself. Not a very good look. If you want clarity, seek it - don't just sit here and claim I don't have cause when you aren't willing to do the work to prove I don't. Just FYI: before any of this complaining started (and that's what it is - complaining), my character's god gave him the full approval to carry on opposing Bamathis. If that isn't roleplay cause, absolutely nothing in this game is.

I don't think it's an exercise of shifting goalposts, but clarifying what gives someone the right to claim unlimited PK aggro against members for doing stuff for their org. It's skirting the line between what makes the game fun for people who just want to do org things and what isn't fun - being signed into a perpetual expectation of aggression, simply for being part of an org. I do agree, of course, that RP actions should have consequences, and that some aggressive stance and hostilities should be expected.

I think what I'm trying to stand for is that there is a very thin line of balance between what becomes fun for players and what isn't. If you can successfully navigate the pitfalls and make it work, good for you. If you can't, then you're going to end up with very bad sentiments and pessimism.

So, to me, I believe what the scroll reads across as, is that if you're going to be consistently and claiming rights to freely PK a person/org for the unforeseeable future with the reasoning that you have, you should make it explicitly clear what they're going to expect: PK everytime they try to do anything related to their God.

This is regardless of whether your character has full approval in-game from the God/Goddess to carry on doing what he is doing. In my opinion, there are other ways to continue opposing a god than just outright murder, though I think both sides are responsible for the experience they get out of it and could use with a little more effort to transform that interpretation into more than just PK.



Note: This is coming from someone who has no real dog in the conflict, and whose character still personally holds hate for Bamathis for specific issues. 

Who bashes in the vortex, what is wrong with all of you. The intended usage for the vortex is to oil yourself up after removing your armor. Then you emote at Iesid with your glistening body.

But while in a Great Hunt, in Iron Man mode, at 4k health, without my artis, trapped in portal? Yeah no. Basically derailed my plan for this entire weekend.

I'm confused about the part where you went "I have 4k health, no artis, and just want to bash for the Great Hunt" and then thought it was logical to go to an open PK area. I don't go into those areas to bash on my arti'd character in normal circumstances because I know I'm inevitably gonna get killed. It's "open PK", not "open PK unless you're just bashing, then you're good".

Any pk in an open PK zone is reasonable. When you enter one, you're cosigning any and all methods of player-driven death you could experience in there.

I mean, for what it's worth, I think Open PK bashing zones are absolutely stupid. I can't think of two aspects of the game that least need to be married than Bashing and Open PK rules. Regardless, those are things that exist, and nothing forces you to go into those zones. So unless those areas are deleted, acting like any manner of death you experience in there is shitty when you signed your own life away is silly. If you find getting ganked in the Vortex or Fracture unfun, there's a really ez fix: don't go there.

Ganking is fine, gank away. It's an established rule that you get PK on anybody in a gank squad (save for Open PK zones) and people team up because they wanna win (aformentioned valid reason). It's fine. Keep ganking idgaf.

People need to follow the rules as written rather than trying to tack on community interpretations that get twisted as time goes on and cause confusion amongst new players/players who don't often come up against the rules. It causes way more headaches and issues than just following the rules as they're intended.