Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 3.7K All Categories
- 3K The Midnight Age
- 757 Announce posts
- 125 Newbies
- 6 Class Guides
- 804 Harpy's Head Tavern
- 57 Echo Canyon
- 310 Self-Affirmations
- 163 Town Crier
- 135 The Exchange
- 167 Sparring Grounds
- Combat Guides
- 30 Combat Logs
- 188 Idea Box
- 9 Classleads
- 578 Roleplay Logs
- 107 Aetolia Development
- 5 The Void
- 744 Miscellaneous
- 9 Announcements
- 417 OOC Chat
- 217 Tech Talk
- 47 Scripts
Looking for more active discussion? Join our Discord at https://discord.gg/x2s7fY6
Taking Responsibility For Actions
Throughout my time within this game I have noticed a tendency among playerbase which has been rather weird at least to me. That is the tendency that organization leaders take actions in behalf of their organizations but they do not share the responsibility as an organization at all.
And Administration supports the resolution of PK conflicts via issue but they wash their hands off from the seemingly RP ones when both of them can be forced on a player for the most frivolous reasons.
If organizations will not share burden of the decisions of their democratically elected leaders and creating enemy roles will not make their life harder then normal...why enemying exists at all? Why the organization exists at all? Why the combat roles exists at all? For the Sect and utterly controlled synthetic conflicts only?
It is not fair for all parties involved. Because it essentially says people can declare you enemy to their organization and wash their hands off as an organization while the status lingers on your STAT. PK is an IC thing and a rebel, a bandit and a vagabond or someone who tries to show that your organization is not that powerful will PK your notable members to retaliate or to get a more favorable deal, to make a point. When the orgs say "This or Else" it is not RP, it is forcing something on the character.
If people's PK issues are resolved claiming that the PK is forced on them (despite they are combat-able and Sect a lot thus has no issue with PK) their enemy statuses should be resolved as well. Or PK issues should just stop and people suck it up to share the burden of their decisions. It is not like PKing is done excessively outside reason most of the time.
Detaching PK engagement from RP engagement is a very dangerous route for the health of the game. Right now the few issues I have engaged in shows me that Administration practically says "It is okay to enemy people with bare-RP reasons and it is not okay to retaliate for their decision except the branding one"
But umm...when the leader of a nation orders a strike against someone at another nation, do you go ahead and kill the leader only or sit by doing nothing? It is not how things pan out generally. You do not create enemies and expect them not to retaliate at some point, foil your attempts and be a nuisance. For MUD games it is done within reason but as I see even those who play the lethal roles are not beneath issuing for getting killed despite their death have a valid reason.
Just trying to say that we should abandon practices which detach PvP, PvE and RP. And we should let organizations deal with the enemies they create themselves. Organizations by definition organize to deter enemies, they should be aware and alert of their surroundings and enemies. If not, they would not be an organization but a loosely-affiliated bunch of people just going their own directions and pay lip service to unity when certain Admin-events come out. This is not healthy, not at all.
And Administration supports the resolution of PK conflicts via issue but they wash their hands off from the seemingly RP ones when both of them can be forced on a player for the most frivolous reasons.
If organizations will not share burden of the decisions of their democratically elected leaders and creating enemy roles will not make their life harder then normal...why enemying exists at all? Why the organization exists at all? Why the combat roles exists at all? For the Sect and utterly controlled synthetic conflicts only?
It is not fair for all parties involved. Because it essentially says people can declare you enemy to their organization and wash their hands off as an organization while the status lingers on your STAT. PK is an IC thing and a rebel, a bandit and a vagabond or someone who tries to show that your organization is not that powerful will PK your notable members to retaliate or to get a more favorable deal, to make a point. When the orgs say "This or Else" it is not RP, it is forcing something on the character.
If people's PK issues are resolved claiming that the PK is forced on them (despite they are combat-able and Sect a lot thus has no issue with PK) their enemy statuses should be resolved as well. Or PK issues should just stop and people suck it up to share the burden of their decisions. It is not like PKing is done excessively outside reason most of the time.
Detaching PK engagement from RP engagement is a very dangerous route for the health of the game. Right now the few issues I have engaged in shows me that Administration practically says "It is okay to enemy people with bare-RP reasons and it is not okay to retaliate for their decision except the branding one"
But umm...when the leader of a nation orders a strike against someone at another nation, do you go ahead and kill the leader only or sit by doing nothing? It is not how things pan out generally. You do not create enemies and expect them not to retaliate at some point, foil your attempts and be a nuisance. For MUD games it is done within reason but as I see even those who play the lethal roles are not beneath issuing for getting killed despite their death have a valid reason.
Just trying to say that we should abandon practices which detach PvP, PvE and RP. And we should let organizations deal with the enemies they create themselves. Organizations by definition organize to deter enemies, they should be aware and alert of their surroundings and enemies. If not, they would not be an organization but a loosely-affiliated bunch of people just going their own directions and pay lip service to unity when certain Admin-events come out. This is not healthy, not at all.
-1
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Yes, it is a pain in the ass to get enemied to an org. It's frustrating and it makes you feel like a target - it's a way for an org to single you out and go "Hey. We don't like you. Fuck you, buddy."
I think that it's a good power for orgs to have. We don't want them to be pointless, empty things with no power that they can exercise.
However, all players are heavily, heavily encouraged to be a member of a city and guild. I know you are a rogue personally, Kalak, and there are one or two others, but it is a very niche choice to make and it is intentionally not a well-supported avenue.
If a person harasses a city over and over, then they will be enemied, right? It's a method of retribution. However, that doesn't mean that everybody in that city has a bone to pick with you on an individual level. They might not enjoy fighting in the first place, let alone with you. If being made an enemy were to enable you to hunt the citizens of an org endlessly, then you'd be able to turn on your own 'open pk' button by intentionally getting yourself enemied to an org and just griefing the shit out of them.
Policy wise, across IRE, it is not okay to PK someone purely for being a member of an enemy organization. You could add context, make your reasons meatier and fuller, and then it might be okay. The member of an enemy organisation taunting you with their morals/etc/whatever? Go light them up. But bystanders should be left out of it, otherwise the game would just be a grief hole.
Another thing to consider is that people acting in a way that you don't think they should doesn't invalidate what they do as roleplay. Rather than trying to change the world to fit with how you think they should act, why don't you change how you act to fit the world you're in? That is, to me, the essence of what roleplay is.
However, I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding in what you've said here: you seem to think that an enemy status constitutes cause on its own, but that is incorrect. An enemy status towards a city represents a barring from the city itself - the enemy is not wanted nor allowed in the city because of something they've done, and that is that. It neither gives citizens cause against the enemy, nor the enemy cause against citizens on its own.
Enemy status can certainly be used for dramatic tension and dramatic tension can, in many cases, lead to cause and conflict, but again, enemy status does not provide PK cause on its own for EITHER party.
The analogy of enemy nations does not apply here - since enemy status has nothing in common with "ordering a strike", as previously discussed.
Finally, the issue system exists to allow players to directly contact the administration with things they consider to be important issues: PK falls into that category quite often, considering how serious it tends to be taken here on Aetolia, and while sometimes issues are in error, they must all be taken seriously.
However, if you believe your enemy status is in error or that one has done more than enough to earn a revocation of that enemy status, we encourage the offended party to seek every avenue of IC resolution.
Thanks again!
If someone's character is not one inclined to kill random guards within a city in retaliation and wants to take a direct, non-diplomatic approach to trying to end their enemied status, what is their option to improve their bargaining position? The best thing I can think of is breaking into the city until they get to a room without guards and just sitting there, waiting for the citizens to come try to flush them out so that "the other guy started it" as to have PK cause, as the previous comments here make it sound like raiding would not be permissible, either. And then just doing this over and over until you've worn them down.
This would be permissible?
Hi.
As Tekias has stated, enemying is kill-on-sight if you choose to trespass in a city whose residents have deemed you unwelcome.
Historically, a single death of the person actually branding you has been within the realm of reason for PK cause, but only the one. It is still your choice whether you wish to live with the status, or seek resolution -- but being an independent nation, the power of security within their borders does sit with the city itself.
PKing defenders after a raid (which is what the latter scenario describes) is not permitted.
You can raid for whatever reason you want, and the consequences are your own to carry. Generally, aggression is not the way to prove to a city that you're safe to have within their walls, however. The community censure and the line drawn from "conflict resolution" to "harassment" will vary by case.
"Can an enemied person raid ad nauseum if you just sit there in a room without guards and wait for people to attack you first. You won't be harassing anyone that way as you're forcing them to 'start' the actual combat by being in the area they don't want you." my reason for asking is because, as you mentioned after, the line between "harassment" and "conflict resolution" is drawn by case.
Just because being a PITA isn't going to make the city like you any more doesn't meant it isn't a legit character decision. "I can't just sit around and stroll your streets? Just try to stop me! Hope you're patient!"
Hi.
Reach out to org leaders and work out a means to be unenemied. That's all it takes.
anyways, maybe i'm misunderstanding, but i feel like it's not always true.
ANYWAYS
Hi.
noun [ C ] us /ˈen·ə·mi/
plural enemies
1 : one that is antagonistic to another; especially : one seeking to injure, overthrow, or confound an opponent
2 : something harmful or deadly ·alcohol was his greatest enemy
3 a : a military adversary
b : a hostile unit or force
When you declare someone an enemy in a MUD game you are basically saying that members of the faction are discouraged to interact with that person and that person has a Kill-on-Sight order upon their head if they show their face in the city. Magically all the mobs loyal to the city will know the face of the enemy and make short work of that person.
Furthermore, it is kind of shaky situation and immersion killing that Aetolia is portrayed as a world full of dangers but when the danger is presented by a player, suddenly it is unaccepted. Aetolia is then not a world full of dangers. Because you can AFK in the middle of nowhere with no one to protect you despite you declared several enemies.
Not to mention that people knowing they can issue rather then interact or parley, they will always get away with declaring you as an enemy. There have been a case I was enemied for cautionary reasons (underlying reason: I do not like you, so go ahead and be an enemy) and it took ages to remove such a stain on the character despite the character was always in good relations with that city. If people complain about PK being forced on them, why I should not complain about unnecessary RP effort being forced on myself? If we are to go for an eye for an eye approach, people should not take decisions on behalf of their ENTIRE FACTION.
Regardless, depending on the situation and the allegiance of my character I either employ RP, RP-K or PK. We should accept that PK is a viable response and gives validity to many roles such as guard, mercenary, bounty hunter and even mediator roles. People should hire guards and take diplomatical cautions rather then "You be enemy now, do this or else!" then switch off the channels until you meet their criteria with the Administration hammer hanging on your head if you retaliate to them.
Current PK rules are outdated and they stifle creativity in ingame roles rather then stimulating them. They are one of the reasons before natural and healthy growth of organizations and a myriad of roles.
Also - sorry for derailing the thread by bad question phrasing!
What exactly is the problem? That you can't attack the people of the organization that enemied you? That you don't really have the upper hand in getting allied again? Why would you? Maybe I'm being dense, but I feel like I need the problem spelled out for me, whatever your grievance is isn't actually clear.
səˈman(t)iks
noun
noun: semantics; noun: logical semantics; noun: lexical semantics
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.
plural noun: semantics
"such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff"
Overall, the game does not shape itself to fit the mold of a specific player, despite the arguments or soapboxes presented for friends or otherwise to discuss the various semantics behind rulings. We often have to consider the best course of actions for an overall playerbase. The engaged playerbase, the organized playerbase. Those who participate amidst the rich lore provided and encourage comraderie and encompassing and inclusive roleplay over the various outlets which exist.
The end of the day what you do with your character is ultimately a choice, a choice you make with the cognition of what may happen if you are a goody goody, harmless roleplayer, or someone who wants to bend the whims of the world as a tyrant. In the same caveat, there are results and perceptions by a larger percentage on both ends of the spectrum. The administration in my eyes is not designed to play to a specific caste of player, let alone make rulings that have dire consequences or potentials which would inherently harm the ...business.
So to argue the semantics as is being presented...is certainly not conducive to providing a result that is from what is being observed as self-serving and not really a communal effort or process from what the playerbase desires as a whole, let alone our administration.
If you do not want me to play the role of an enemy, then we parley and resolve the situation. But as one player can be stubborn so can be ten players or a whole organization.
Here the problem is that people can make decisions for whole organizations, they are democratically elected. Does that absolve others from the responsibility? Why the retaliation should be done on the person instead of the organization? If the organization did not want the person as an enemy, someone else can revoke the situation since they have the capability. Otherwise I will have to assume the decision was supported by the organization-wide.
Is it too hard to hire a damn guard after making enemies? Instead of issuing? After giving ultimatums and whatnot to the enemy character.
If your character's RP is protector of weak and downtrodden, does it not make sense at least you should be able to protect them actually?
Sounds like some players are just lazy. Or irresponsible with their trigger finger on enemy command.
And remember, it's a game.
Edit: I think it's probably a good time to point out that organizations such as cities are also, from an RP perspective, more powerful than an individual. For good reason. Unless you can prove otherwise. Take that into account with your RP.
I do not advocate PKing entire organizations, and I generally prefer selective killing rather then senseless killing as part of RP and PK cycle of a conflict. It does not make sense to PK Minister of Cultural Affairs, but I shall definitely go ahead and kill (or try to kill) a Warden or Lord Protector to make a point. Or the head of knights or state. They are people in the decision-making process and will color the judgement of their citizens.
The basis of democracy means that you are giving your decision making responsibility to someone for the foreseeable future. Why it should be my responsibility to suffer for your org members' poor choice? It should be both mine and your org members responsibility to suffer for that.
Also I am aware of the many options, but just once in a while I want to employ PK...you know use the abilities and stuff I got by investing into this game? I do not like Sect or Ylem, so this is my avenue and as someone who intends to invest in this RP-K avenue I would like people to take responsibility in their decisions which affect their orgs.
And from a RP perspective a city is more powerful then an individual. In no side of my RP-PK cycle I denied that, but I also prove that cities are weak against guerilla warfare and extremely lazy to take necessary precautions both RP-wise and PK-wise.
You can't make up the rules to suit your personal situation or desires.
We keep reminding ourselves that this is a game but seem to forget that games have rules. The simple rules for PK are: it has to make sense. It does not make sense for anyone to engage in violence over and over again because they are considered an enemy (earned or otherwise) after already retaliating for the initial enemyship. Simply put, what constitutes a fulfilled debt? The answer is almost always -one- action. If they retaliate, it begins a cycle. If it doesn't you move on. Attempting to force a cycle will be a breach. That's how our rules are set.
This is where harassment comes into the picture. An org that does not want to deal with you, members of that org, will deal with you until they've fulfilled the debt and if the engagement was unpleasant enough, they will not instigate more.
The story ends there. If you want rich PK, you need to make it fun for the 'lazy players' and factor their ability into your encounters. Picking on someone you know can't fight will always result in a bad time. I know from experience as both the subject and aggressor.
Enemying for flimsy or weak reasons is as good as PKing people for coughing your way. Why should I deal with the enemy status forced on myself while they do not even take responsibility of the status they declare? As I said, people can declare you enemy for less right now. RPing a reconciliation takes way more effort and time then PKing. Why should I have to deal with that long tiring process because I rubbed the someone wrong way? Knowing they can go ahead and re-enemy with their twitchy trigger finger at their whim?
People should take IC measures against PK-threats rather then jumping to the issues at the sooner opportunity.
Anyways, I shall concede for now, because I guess I have said everything I wanted to say.
i demand wereunicorns as a permanent sub-type of the shapeshifter class. go ahead and balance them so they're not blatantly absurd (i c u reskinned chaosray), but i want that reskin. i gotta make @Toz despair with my rainbow pony magic. we all know it's already been coded, so it's not like i'm asking something huge here - just clean it up a bit for real release. if aetolia is going to remain at the forefront of fantasy role-playing games, we must have unicorns. i mean, our unicorning unicorns filter is full of unicorns. isn't that false advertising if we don't actually have playable unicorns?
give me unicorns, please and thank.
unicorns.
If someone enemies me without a good reason (it has happened MANY times, by the way) I will try to resolve it or if that fails, give them a good reason. That's Lea's policy. It's my policy. If I can do that, regardless of the situation, I can live happily.
You don't have to deal with anything you don't want to deal with, but you have just admitted that you understand the situation and refuse to put the effort into resolving it because it does not favor you. You are the one who wants something out of the situation, regardless how unfair it has come to pass, and it should be expected that you will have to put forth more effort to get that something, in this case, unenemying. If you didn't care, they would have no power. No one is saying it doesn't suck.
Yes, it sucks when people abuse their positions of power. Corruption is real. If you know the people able to enemy you have it out for you there are only a few choices, stop caring or walk on thin ice until the situation changes. That's a facet of the game (albeit a sucky one) and one from real life.
I can promise you that adjusting to fit situations will result in positive action from both sides. If they don't feel you've changed or will do the same thing again, why should they bother putting forth the effort or risk to change a situation that favors them?
That's the answer to your question. Technically yes you are baiting them. Baiting is completely permitted.
When someone like you, @Kalak, does what you tend to do or tend to advocate for, you end up with rubbing people the wrong way, or become enough of a nuisance that people will not want to bother with you. Manage your play poorly and you'll likely find yourself with a lot of enemy statuses to a lot of places, and even fewer people willing to deal with you in getting it lifted.
Enemy statuses are quick and easy ways of dealing with people who've done something against an org or have proven themselves to be a threat or enough of an irritant that they'd just otherwise refuse to deal with them. You complain about enemy status being such an inconvenient imposition? It goes both ways. Entreating every problem person with RP interactions for resolution or whatever can be an inconvenient imposition or more of a headache than it's worth, and more often than not, it's pointless and a waste of time. When it comes to an individual vs an org, don't expect the org to cater to you. They have no obligation to.
You want those statuses removed? Expect to swallow your pride in some manner in order to get it done; you dug the hole you're in, so expect to dig yourself out. And if people refuse to deal with you whatsoever, well, tough shit; you might have to evaluate how you've been playing if you've pissed people off enough that they won't bother with you at all.
Edit: Also, I find the title of your topic to be rather ironic. You talk about 'taking responsibility for one's actions'. You place the blame on orgs and the people leading them, but neglect responsibility on the part of the person being enemied. Yeah. Petty enemy statuses for nothing at all or petty things suck, and they happen, but if you ask nicely and are, y'know, actually reasonable, people will be happy to remove them. In a lot of cases, an enemy status is given because you did something, so you as the player have to take responsibility for that. Don't want to take responsibility or don't want to go to the effort of getting it removed? Congratulations, enjoy being stuck with it.
That is the most obnoxious thing I have heard today.
And it is an irresponsible approach. If orgs do not want to deal with their choices, they should not make choices. If they are not obligated to cater to individual, so the individual does not have an obligation to cater to them. Period.
Hi.