Looking for more active discussion? Join our Discord at https://discord.gg/x2s7fY6
Best Of
Re: Mildly Irritating: Aetolia's Pet Peeves
Naw, bloodlust is an okay reason for the first kill. You generally get one eye closed for the first kill, whatever the reason.Seurimas said:Lim said:Yeah, you're probably right that it is a fine reason on its own. It's when it's paired with the general 'no issue over one death/PK attempt' guideline that it becomes a bit more questionable. So the formula would be to 1. start a fight (whether justified or not, it's still acceptable because of the general guideline), and then 2. bring in friends on the retaliation. It's a recipe for PK farming/the appearance of PK farming, which I think is the recurring theme here. So it's in that context that the bringing in of allies becomes a bit more eh.I would add to a point Elene mentioned though - I personally do find the "They are my allies", or "My org are allies to their cause", or "my friends that got assaulted I must revenge." reasons are really weak sauce to justify PK.I don't know the specifics here, but I firmly believe "because they're my allies" is a fine RP to defend someone, and that the rules allow this behavior. RP isn't transactional between two people. Communities exist, and protecting your own is natural. This isn't a lesser, though, and you should be ready to be involved, because you open yourself up to retaliation.Conversely, the same does not hold as strongly (possibly at all, by the rules) for offensive acts. If you're not involved in an ally's conflict, you don't get a free pass just because you're buddies.
Well, I'd say retaliation is offensive. Unless your buddy is being actively attacked right now by an aggressor, you're not defending, and you need something better than friendship for jumping into the fray. If someone balks at that restriction, they should remember the "bad guys" need better reasons than blood lust for murdering you, too.
And as for the 'retaliation is offensive' take, I think its probably something you've got to experience yourself if you can't immediately empathise.
Lim
1
Re: Mildly Irritating: Aetolia's Pet Peeves
"He PK'd me with no cause" is really baffling too. That keeps coming up, and I don't really understand it one bit because I'm pretty sure if you asked he could list off the exact reason he's coming after people. Hang on I still have it saved somewhere...
Toz
5
Re: Mildly Irritating: Aetolia's Pet Peeves
I mean, these are the same people who think you can't shout about people being dishonourable after they dogpile you 3v1 in Vortex for bashing because "it's the Vortex." Yeah, the Vortex is part of the roleplay game and your character's actions there, while "legal," can still be criticized!
Using "it's the Vortex" to justify shitty behavior is about as silly as using "he is giving a sermon" to justify it. Allowable or not, it's still shitty behavior. But ganking is only okay when it's Spirit doing it, apparently.
I did not touch Isia, ever, by the way. Deathsight would confirm this to anyone with eyes. And yes, I'm going to keep going after you if all you do is hide behind guards. If you want it to stop, face the consequences head on. It seems simple. You do not get a free pass just because you continue to hide and gank.
Using "it's the Vortex" to justify shitty behavior is about as silly as using "he is giving a sermon" to justify it. Allowable or not, it's still shitty behavior. But ganking is only okay when it's Spirit doing it, apparently.
I did not touch Isia, ever, by the way. Deathsight would confirm this to anyone with eyes. And yes, I'm going to keep going after you if all you do is hide behind guards. If you want it to stop, face the consequences head on. It seems simple. You do not get a free pass just because you continue to hide and gank.
Sheryni
3
Re: Mildly Irritating: Aetolia's Pet Peeves
If we want to foster the type of environment that Elene and others have been bringing up lately regarding OOC feelings being hurt, and lots of player smearing. I think I can reliably say which side will break first.I definitely agree Shadow has its problems. It will be interesting to see how this plays out!
Btw this overly condescending, passive-aggressive paragraph of your post kinda invalidates anything else you tried to say in the rest of your post.
Akrios
1
Re: Mildly Irritating: Aetolia's Pet Peeves
I'm going to assume you are actively trying to be petty or vindictive, and that your roleplay is in good faith, otherwise I'm just like everyone else already assuming that the other side is only acting in a way to grief or cause issue.
Ultimately our specific argument boils down to me not agreeing with you feeling like you have 'carte blanche' on members of Bamathis' order and/or congregation when outside of normal avenues of conflict. And that's fine, we can disagree there. I do not believe in whimsical killing, and believe a well-written emote is infinitely more valuable than a well-crafted AI. This also doesn't change that I think people are being nasty to each other, and I don't rate it at all.
Ultimately our specific argument boils down to me not agreeing with you feeling like you have 'carte blanche' on members of Bamathis' order and/or congregation when outside of normal avenues of conflict. And that's fine, we can disagree there. I do not believe in whimsical killing, and believe a well-written emote is infinitely more valuable than a well-crafted AI. This also doesn't change that I think people are being nasty to each other, and I don't rate it at all.
Naos
2
Re: Mildly Irritating: Aetolia's Pet Peeves
You are creating subjective rules that fit only your position.I'm not, though, and your stated opinion is very different from what is happening in game. Please see below.
In reality, it is no different from the very opinion you have what I would be doing, it is not that I am doing these things but instead representing an example similarly posed.
This is some very weird Aetolian whataboutism, when I think about it. We're always going back to "this is just sore losers and sore winners and tether tribalism". I don't think this is an issue of tribalism. I think this is an unwillingness to accept in character consequences for in character roleplay decisions. You keep pointing everything back towards tribalism or side-picking - which, to me, reveals an assumption of bad faith. That's not something I am equipped to fix and nor is it my responsibility to. I have a game to play, after all.
When we are winning, we are right, and when we are losing it is wrong. At the end of the day neither party is correct. There is no amount of justification or rules lawyering that will make it acceptable. It is purely going to take based on the state of things, one side finally having enough that they throw a big enough fit for any appropriate feedback.
If we want to foster the type of environment that Elene and others have been bringing up lately regarding OOC feelings being hurt, and lots of player smearing. I think I can reliably say which side will break first. So, really as I see it, lets see what happens, I have been on good behavior as of late, and I'm not going to gather the masses to jump people for things like putting up shrines. (not like any of the defenders are even in the orders of the Gods for the shrines anyways) However, I know myself and others could certainly devolve our standards a bit to see what comes of it.This sort of posturing is more deserving of the label of 'tether tribalism', dude.
Listen man, I get what you're saying. It reads as if you have a very RPI outlook on the game, and I think various attributes of those kind of MUDs are unique and should be better incorporated into the Roleplay-Enforced game we play now.I don't think the rules you are alluding to actually exist.
But the game does not change simply because you want it to. The rules - the written in stone rules - do not alter because you feel like they should. If the game is to change, then bring up the possibility of that change, and promote a shift towards an outlook that people can slowly come to terms with rather than find it dumped on their lap because you feel like it should be so.
Player killing is an acceptable and necessary avenue for conflict resolution in Aetolia. Contract
enforcement, vengeance, or yes, roleplay, can be Acceptable reasons to attack another player. The
visceral exercise of combat affords an unmatchable level of drama and challenge that help make
Aetolia an exciting and memorable world.
No single death issues
----------------------
Any issue filed purely over an attack where NO DEATH or a SINGLE DEATH occurred will generally BE
DISMISSED outright. Death is a part of Aetolia, and there are numerous avenues to deal with the
repercussions of player killing without the Administration stepping in. These avenues should always
be taken, and issues that concern player killing of any sort should only be filed where they
constitute serious breaches of conduct and may constitute harassment. This does not mean that Admin
will never act if it is a single or no death involved. However, it is more likely to be dismissed.
Please keep in mind hard rules such as those that constitute open PK and the like will take
precedence if it is found that they are intentionally broken.
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.
Teaming, assassination, and excessive PK
----------------------------------------
Repeatedly killing the same person for the same reason is rarely acceptable behavior. Killing
someone over and over, and other attempts to demoralize someone to the point of wanting to quit
playing are good ways to attract the ire of immortals.
Any time you assist another player, or group of players, in slaying someone - you are expected to
have a strong reason to help kill them.
Being hired to kill someone, by itself, is not enough of a motive. If you are claiming a bounty,
make sure you are aware of the motive to begin with. Just killing them because there is a bounty is
not enough. Both the hired assassin and the hirer are equally culpable for what results from their
interaction. BOTH need to make sure their reasons justify killing, and both will be punished if they
do not.
If you use assistance to slay someone, and do not land the killing blow, you generally _can not_ use
the same reason and attempt to kill the person again.
enforcement, vengeance, or yes, roleplay, can be Acceptable reasons to attack another player. The
visceral exercise of combat affords an unmatchable level of drama and challenge that help make
Aetolia an exciting and memorable world.
No single death issues
----------------------
Any issue filed purely over an attack where NO DEATH or a SINGLE DEATH occurred will generally BE
DISMISSED outright. Death is a part of Aetolia, and there are numerous avenues to deal with the
repercussions of player killing without the Administration stepping in. These avenues should always
be taken, and issues that concern player killing of any sort should only be filed where they
constitute serious breaches of conduct and may constitute harassment. This does not mean that Admin
will never act if it is a single or no death involved. However, it is more likely to be dismissed.
Please keep in mind hard rules such as those that constitute open PK and the like will take
precedence if it is found that they are intentionally broken.
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.
Teaming, assassination, and excessive PK
----------------------------------------
Repeatedly killing the same person for the same reason is rarely acceptable behavior. Killing
someone over and over, and other attempts to demoralize someone to the point of wanting to quit
playing are good ways to attract the ire of immortals.
Any time you assist another player, or group of players, in slaying someone - you are expected to
have a strong reason to help kill them.
Being hired to kill someone, by itself, is not enough of a motive. If you are claiming a bounty,
make sure you are aware of the motive to begin with. Just killing them because there is a bounty is
not enough. Both the hired assassin and the hirer are equally culpable for what results from their
interaction. BOTH need to make sure their reasons justify killing, and both will be punished if they
do not.
If you use assistance to slay someone, and do not land the killing blow, you generally _can not_ use
the same reason and attempt to kill the person again.
Nothing in here says that what I'm doing is wrong. If you do not believe my roleplay is in good faith, that's an altogether different problem to be tackling than 'what is allowed for PK cause?'.
Iesid
3
Re: Mildly Irritating: Aetolia's Pet Peeves
You are creating subjective rules that fit only your position.
In reality, it is no different from the very opinion you have what I would be doing, it is not that I am doing these things but instead representing an example similarly posed.
We could go round and round trying to justify what is acceptable and what is not, ultimately it will boil down to tether tribalism on what is acceptable. When we are winning, we are right, and when we are losing it is wrong. At the end of the day neither party is correct. There is no amount of justification or rules lawyering that will make it acceptable. It is purely going to take based on the state of things, one side finally having enough that they throw a big enough fit for any appropriate feedback.
This is where things get a bit messy of course.
If we want to foster the type of environment that Elene and others have been bringing up lately regarding OOC feelings being hurt, and lots of player smearing. I think I can reliably say which side will break first. So, really as I see it, lets see what happens, I have been on good behavior as of late, and I'm not going to gather the masses to jump people for things like putting up shrines. (not like any of the defenders are even in the orders of the Gods for the shrines anyways) However, I know myself and others could certainly devolve our standards a bit to see what comes of it.
In reality, it is no different from the very opinion you have what I would be doing, it is not that I am doing these things but instead representing an example similarly posed.
We could go round and round trying to justify what is acceptable and what is not, ultimately it will boil down to tether tribalism on what is acceptable. When we are winning, we are right, and when we are losing it is wrong. At the end of the day neither party is correct. There is no amount of justification or rules lawyering that will make it acceptable. It is purely going to take based on the state of things, one side finally having enough that they throw a big enough fit for any appropriate feedback.
This is where things get a bit messy of course.
If we want to foster the type of environment that Elene and others have been bringing up lately regarding OOC feelings being hurt, and lots of player smearing. I think I can reliably say which side will break first. So, really as I see it, lets see what happens, I have been on good behavior as of late, and I'm not going to gather the masses to jump people for things like putting up shrines. (not like any of the defenders are even in the orders of the Gods for the shrines anyways) However, I know myself and others could certainly devolve our standards a bit to see what comes of it.
Nipsy
1
Re: Mildly Irritating: Aetolia's Pet Peeves
I mean, the way I see it, we will see how people react when the tides inevitably turn and similar things happen to the opposing faction.
Though I seem to recall hearing a bunch of heartache over a single Gnome killing City guards no less than a month ago.
In the least, the forums provide quotable evidence that behaviors are acceptable.
Throw wide the gates.
When I start killing every Duirani novice, because Duiran has Haern as a patron, and it would be uncouth for me to change my RP, for a faction that does things my character doesn't like, I will be sure to reference this. Afterall, I shouldn't have to change my RP because it upsets people. (Sounds real bad when you read it that way, but I'm down to clown)
Though I seem to recall hearing a bunch of heartache over a single Gnome killing City guards no less than a month ago.
In the least, the forums provide quotable evidence that behaviors are acceptable.
Throw wide the gates.
When I start killing every Duirani novice, because Duiran has Haern as a patron, and it would be uncouth for me to change my RP, for a faction that does things my character doesn't like, I will be sure to reference this. Afterall, I shouldn't have to change my RP because it upsets people. (Sounds real bad when you read it that way, but I'm down to clown)
Nipsy
3