Cross factional RP

ArbreArbre Arbrelina JolieBraavos
This discussion was created from comments split from: Ankyrean Anguish - Aetolia-based RAGE.
«13

Comments

  • MoireanMoirean Chairmander Portland
    Heading to Duiran and being emoted at. Emoting back and settling down for some RP and being told to basically get out of the city via OOC tells. Enemy me - and don't initiate RP - if you don't want me emoting at people, geeze.
    PiperKatsziaXeniaAryanne

  • Moirean said:
    Heading to Duiran and being emoted at. Emoting back and settling down for some RP and being told to basically get out of the city via OOC tells. Enemy me - and don't initiate RP - if you don't want me emoting at people, geeze.

    I'm sorry to whomever told you to get out. I know Xavin and I just came to see what was going on is all, make sure you weren't up to trouble and we'd have left you alone. :(

    imageimage
    SolariaArbre
  • AshmerAshmer Barefoot Adventurer Life
    Moirean said:
    Heading to Duiran and being emoted at. Emoting back and settling down for some RP and being told to basically get out of the city via OOC tells. Enemy me - and don't initiate RP - if you don't want me emoting at people, geeze.

    the way she tells me I'm hers and she is mine

    open hand or closed fist would be fine

    blood as rare and sweet as cherry wine

  • AarbrokAarbrok Breaking things...For Science San Diego, CA
    edited December 2013
    @Moirean whoever told you to leave, thats completely uncalled for.

    I am sorry that happened, if you ever come to Duiran and Aarbrok is around and you want to chat, you are welcome to, and Aarbs will give them the angry fist of disapproval if they ask you to leave.


    Heck I invited Neoma in, a Vampire, to my office to chat about Niuri, told the Council and no one batted an eyelash.
  • TeaniTeani Shadow Mistress Sweden
    Person: Hey, you shouldn't spend time with those people, cuz they're bad.
    me: In what way? I barely know half the people I'm standing with right now.
    Person: Vampires, Undead, scum, evil people. They're just bad.
    me: Right, but if we ignore them, or only fight them, how can they learn that change might be good?
    Person: They can't, cuz they're stupid.
    me: Ah, and there are no stupid people among our allies?
    Person: Well, some, but at least they're on our side!
    me: Mhm, I see. So I shouldn't even speak to them, give them a chance to turn to our side?
    Person: It won't matter, they're enemies, besides won't you get in trouble with your city and guild for being with them?
    me: If they have a problem with me standing somewhere, they can bring it up with me, ask my reasons.
    Person: There can't be any reasons good enough to spend time with scum. Imma report this. Can't have our allies consorting with the enemy.

    *facepalm* That's how I feel about these kinds of conversations.

    I always disliked the Association Laws then they were a trend in the game (thank goodness they're gone for the most part) because it prohibits interaction across the boarders, which in turn can lead to character development. People should give others a little bit more leeway so they can enjoy the game and not feel guilty about it. 

    Say you find some fun RP on the other side of the fence and you try to enjoy the game as much as possible by exploring this. Sure, you might be approached and people might complain about it and snort and stomp their feet, but if it's handled properly, the RP aspect of that will still be fun for all involved. However, if someone comes along, breathing down your neck for it, not even considering to listen to your reasons, even if you have a legit one for being there, that's when it starts to become frustrating.



    MoireanKatsziaPiper
  • MoireanMoirean Chairmander Portland
    We like our boarders interacting in Spinesreach. That's why we put lobbies and living rooms in our apartments.
    Piper
  • AngweAngwe I'm the dog that ate yr birthday cake Bedford, VA
    For reference: No one told Moirean to leave. I was RPing with Moirean in Duiran. My character was shadowing her, watching her movements because Moirean is a Carnifex and Carnifex are (for a very good reason) not welcome in Duiran right now. A member of Duiran contacted me, suggesting that we PK her for being there. I told that person (ICly) that Moirean was running an errand for a Councilor and that she would promptly leave when her business was done.

    Now pay attention, here's the thick of the plot: I sent Moirean an OOC tell warning her that PK might be headed her way if we didn't hurry our RP along. Moirean immediately winged out and threw a hissy fit at me via tells for 'telling her to leave'.

    Personally, I was enjoying the RP and would have liked to have continued. I just didn't want to get her gank'd in the process. Next time, I won't say anything.
    image
  • MoireanMoirean Chairmander Portland
    I did not throw a hissy fit. I left and went bashing. My entire side of the conversation basically consisted of me saying "So? Being Carnifex doesn't mean I'm just randomly open PK. Oh well, I'll leave you guys alone." That's really all I'm going to say because I do want to find a decent ground with you at some point where we can interact without getting upset and saying more on this matter isn't going to help that.
  • JensenJensen Corruption's Butcher
    All members of <insert guild here> should be auto enemied, taken out back, and shot like dogs.
    image
    HavenArbrePiper
  • AngweAngwe I'm the dog that ate yr birthday cake Bedford, VA
    edited December 2013
    @Jensen: I'm not saying all that. But I'm not a fan of the recent 'Let's all be friends and be nice to each other ICly, too' trend. Of course, when a guild practices a skillset that is damn-near an exact mirror of the acts that caused an Organization's current crisis, there's going to be hostility, that's common sense.
    Edit: I'm not saying that every encounter should immediately jump to frothing-at-the-mouth aggression and PK but, for gods sake man, show some teeth! I certainly don't appreciate it when it's just conveniently forgotten that my character actively works to be a thorn in your Organization's side, if I'm going to get a favor from you, I should have to work for it.

    A separate gripe: I really, really, really want to RP with the Ranger mobs in the Sentinel GH, but I can never get them (or any other NPC) to respond to me.
    image
  • edited December 2013
    My reaction to PK threats in response to RP is less rage and more:

    image
    KatsziaAryanne
  • NeithanNeithan Sunspear, the Principality of Dorne
    PK and RP are not mutually exclusive. They are, in fact, two parts of the same thing: Aetolia, the Midnight Age.

    In summary, don't RP something that might piss off someone who can and will stomp you into the ground if you don't want to risk PK.
    AngweHavenAryanneDraiman
  • TeaniTeani Shadow Mistress Sweden
    Neithan said:
    PK and RP are not mutually exclusive. They are, in fact, two parts of the same thing: Aetolia, the Midnight Age.

    In summary, don't RP something that might piss off someone who can and will stomp you into the ground if you don't want to risk PK.
    However, if someone RP's and you're just annoyed/don't want to interact, don't find a flimsy reason to take offense and turn to PK just to get rid of them. There are other ways to end/avoid RP.



    SessizlikHavenKatsziaAryanne
  • Good RP between enemies should lead to much more meaningful and fun pvp.

    No one in Duiran is going to get into trouble for rping with the other side. None of us (tbh don't know about the bahkatu anymore, but they don't count anyway) have association laws anymore. There might be the odd warning against being intimate with the enemy, or some other extreme, but generally speaking it is accepted and once a character is established, even encouraged.

    Some people might like to play the zealot, but buggered if I know why that has to mean no talking to the enemy.

    Surely playing a zealot is more fun if you're doing it while interacting with the enemy? Otherwise you're just preaching to the choir and basically being annoying.


    AngweMoireanXiuhcoatlKatszia
  • DaingeanDaingean Xanhaal, probably.
    Irruel said:
    Some people might like to play the zealot, but buggered if I know why that has to mean no talking to the enemy.

    Surely playing a zealot is more fun if you're doing it while interacting with the enemy? Otherwise you're just preaching to the choir and basically being annoying.
    The Daru have association laws, sort of - but it's never meant 'don't interact with the enemy at all' so much as 'if you feel this rule applies to you, you're not ready to be interacting with the enemy, and if the Daru leadership feels the need to tell you this rule applies to you, you're -definitely- not ready to interact with the enemy.'

    But the Daru -are- zealots, and they -are- the far, far Light of the spectrum. It's sort of part and parcel that they'll automatically feel animosity towards anything not distinctly of their kind. That said, I can say for myself that Daingean has immense respect for many of the people he wishes to eradicate, and feels quite strongly that what he does would have no meaning if there weren't fervent enemies to oppose him just as readily as he opposes them.

    All this said, I -like- and -desire- the polarity, which is probably why I play a Zealot. If there started being a whole slew of Black Flagon-esque gathering points and everyone started braiding hair and putting flowers on the end of halberds, Dain might start throwing some punches.
    Proudly fighting against Greytolia since the [approximately] 3/1/2010 at 18:00.
    NeithanAngweAryanne
  • MoireanMoirean Chairmander Portland
    Thing is, you can be hostile and still interact. Hostility doesn't just need to be confined to PK and non-contact.
    KatsziaArbreAryanne
  • PhoeneciaPhoenecia The Merchant of Esterport Somewhere in Attica
    Moirean said:
    Thing is, you can be hostile and still interact. Hostility doesn't just need to be confined to PK and non-contact.
    This. I find that the best policy to roll with tends to be 'everything in moderation'. I don't feel people should limit themselves to only interacting with other characters on their own side because interaction breeds better tension, and more complex ties. Also makes for a more interesting narrative. But there are limits. If you're on the Light side, but are all for love and peace with the undead and actively help them, that starts getting kind of sketchy.
  • TeaniTeani Shadow Mistress Sweden
    Teani's a guildless Slyphian from Duiran, who used to live in Spinesreach. Even though she's firm in her belief Life > Undeath and would never give it up, she's kind of far away from being a zealot. Being pounced on (sometimes by young 'fresh-off-the-Isle' people) for how she interacts with the other side is just annoying.

    Interacting with the other side doesn't necessarily mean that you're friendly and cosy with them. It can, but there might be a reason for it. No one should have to feel guilty about interacting with the other side for fear of being tossed out of their organization. At the very least, they should be allowed to explain their reasons for why they are. If the reason is legit, for example an Ascendril doing research, or a Zealot trying to turn someone to the Light, that should be enough, as long as they are not helping them against allies.

    I don't think Vampires are complaining that much when their people mingle with the Living trying to turn them around or getting someone to feed from. It's always been a bigger issue for the Light side.



  • MoireanMoirean Chairmander Portland
    edited January 2014
    I have directly told my guildies that I don't care if they sleep with the 'enemy' as long as there is some sort of greater goal there. Lifer orgs have not been so lenient and we've ended up with new members. 

    It's a tricky spot for lifer orgs, though. They are ostensibly the "good" orgs, so they need to be more strict, at least according to the existing org outlooks. Look at all the drama that went down with @hadoryu and @elene, or me and @tralendar. That sort of stuff is a big deal for lifers, whereas darkies can just shrug it off, so any sort of line-crossing deep interaction often results in the darkies gaining someone new because lifers push the offender out. I think lifers could find a way to handle that and deal with it without ostracizing and ejecting, but I've not seen it yet.

    I know that the only reason I ever went darkie is because I was ejected from my orgs. I didn't one day decide that I wanted to side-hop. It was a conclusion I came to because I can't play Aet as a single-player game and I enjoy it best when I am in orgs.
    KatsziaArbreHadoryu
  • edited January 2014
    My perception has always been that a significant part of the fun of playing with the other side is that it isn't automatically acceptable. You are pushing the limits of the rules, doing something a bit controversial, a bit different and edgy at least, maybe even downright wrong. It's generally really interesting and leads to some great character development and story arcs. I don't know if it would be as interesting, though, if there wasn't that sense of controversy and potential threat of trouble resulting - if everyone's completely cool with hanging out with Spinesreach/the vampires/insert org here, then where is the interesting, novel aspect to it? As reverse psychology goes, it might work, but squashing the excitement entirely isn't really what I'm wanting to do as a player.

    I have had my character both as the one pushing the limits of cross-factional interaction and as a leader trying to uphold the rules of her organization and try to prevent those she leads from making what she perceives as the same stupid mistakes. It was a lot more enjoyable with the former whereas the latter has often been an exercise in frustration. The difficulty for Lifer leaders seems to be that people doing the cross-factional RP want that controversial fun stuff and sense that there might be trouble with your home orgs, without getting to the point where there actually is trouble. 

    What, then, do you do? If a leader ignores it or dismisses it with something like 'well, do be careful' again and again, then controversial/fun/threatening edge is pretty much nullified - it doesn't take long to work out that they're not going to do anything. If, as leader, you actually try and stop or divert the character, though, you're now definitely risking ruining their fun. I honestly have liked it in Aetolia and other games when my characters got called on their antics, but I've discovered the hard way that a lot of people don't feel the same. Sometimes there might be something that can be pulled out to justify a story and save everyone's face - some critical research that needs doing, someone who you think can be saved, something like that - but that really, really isn't always the case and the people stirring things up don't always make it easy for you to pull out an excuse to help them help themselves.

    My own rule of thumb as a leader has been that I will ignore and/or not worry about whatever cross-factional RP someone has their character undertaking unless it's really out there, the character is forcing it to my attention, or my character is somehow part of it as well. The basic premise behind that is that if you don't want to deal with the consequences, you wouldn't be, after repeated warnings of "do be careful", telling her at length about whatever out-there thing it is you're doing, causing trouble, conducting your affair in visible places, whatever. The results of even this, though, are pretty mixed, and it honestly can be hard to find the right balance to it.

    I suppose my final comment on this is something of a disclaimer and I feel hesitant about even putting this out there, but the rage thread where people go when they're especially angry and acquainted with the forums isn't always the best indication of the bigger picture. There's a lot of things happening and perspectives that don't make it onto the forums. I personally do not sit around pondering ways to stop people's fun and I'm pretty sure most other players, whether their characters are leaders or otherwise and whatever side they are on, don't either. To be clear, this isn't aimed at anyone in particular, but rather something I feel like is really important to bear in mind when we have these discussions.
    ArekaPiperXavinMoirean
  • What @ciarelle said. x10. Smart lady.

    The thing, really, is that actions have consequences, or they should. There has to be a line where 'this is a game, let a person have fun' sort of meets the IC, 'there is no way this wouldn't be brought up'. And people should not jump to conclusions or get upset about what is (or should be) an entirely in-character reaction,

    But I don't know. I figure something out about this game every day, obviously. :)


    AngweXavinCiarelle
  • ArbreArbre Arbrelina Jolie Braavos
    Rashar said:
    But I don't know. I figure something out about this game every day, obviously. :)

    Most of the time it's funnier things though.
  • Rashar said:
    What @ciarelle said. x10. Smart lady.
    10x that wall of text? Please no :(
    TeaniArbre
  • SessizlikSessizlik Muffin Mage

    I have a question for @Ciarelle, since we have had quite a few arguements about this icly. You wrote:

    "My own rule of thumb as a leader has been that I will ignore and/or not worry about whatever cross-factional RP someone has their character undertaking unless it's really out there, the character is forcing it to my attention, or my character is somehow part of it as well."

    So this means that as long as noone tells you about it, it's all fine and dandy?

    I might be wrong (and if so correct me) but from reading this it seems working in the shadows, not letting your character know what is going on is preferable to being open and honest about it. Wouldn't it be better if someone came up and says "Hey, this research of mine is about this and I'll have to approach some people on the other side for information. I'll be carefull and I'll have a report for you in the end. Alright?"
    Rather than you noticing said person being in unsavory company without having given a reason?

    Sessi has always been open about what she is doing, and I can tell from your post that that has been my problem from the start. However, Sessi isn't the kind of person who would lie and sneak about things. I can understand that it's not always acceptable, but at least when there is a good reason for it, it shouldn't be directly shot down.

    I would really like to hear your thoughts about this, and perhaps clear some of the misunderstandings.

    image
  • @Sessizlik As I said, again, there are three things that tend to force me to intervene whether I really want to or not. To clarify:

    1) It's really out there - it's especially scandalous, obvious, not in keeping with the tenets of an org
    2) A character forces it to my attention - I think this is the one you have taken issue with? Forcing it to my attention isn't purely telling me about it directly. If you're especially obvious about what you're doing and it's something my character can't not know about, then that is dragging it to my attention.
    3) My character somehow is part of it as well.

    Telling me directly generally works better, yes. There are various reasons that Sessizlik's approach doesn't always yield the instant agreement I get the impression she seeks. Some of this is the context of the conversations - their previous encounters, what Sessizlik has been doing/not doing, things like that. Some of this is the manner in which the requests are made, her responses when asked for further information, and her reactions when the answer isn't an immediate yes. Ciarelle's reactions are IC and that I still take Sessizlik's reactions as IC. If I have Ciarelle ask why exactly something is necessary, for example, that is because that's something that I think she needs to know and that Sessizlik needs to convince her. I, the player, might be able to guess that you just want to RP with X and be part of plot development Y, but that isn't something that my character can possibly know. 

    I'm stopping there because I don't really feel like this is the place to go into personal specifics beyond that. While I am happy to talk to you about this in OOC tells, messages, PMs, I don't believe they are all that helpful to the wider discussion.
  • AngweAngwe I'm the dog that ate yr birthday cake Bedford, VA
    edited January 2014
    I would go so far as to say that removing hostility or distrust from interactions with opposing factions in the interest of being 'nice' or whatever it is some are going for actually discourages cross-factional RP. In diluting these encounters until there's no tension left but some light-hearted ribbing and a few winky emotes, it becomes something boring and vapid. You've removed all complexity and nuance from the interaction besides whatever personal history the two characters might share, which really only does you both a disservice.

    I'm not someone who'll approach most people IC for no real reason. Therefore, there are a great many characters I'd never have an excuse to approach outside of RPing some sort of intervention or investigation of their actions, which isn't generally well received ICly (and sometimes, unfortunately, OOCly). Take, for instance, the the example of the RP that sparked this conversation. Now, in regular life, Angwe has no reason to offer Moirean anything more than a dismissive grunt as he passes on by, on to his business. Her presence in Duiran, and his subsequent blatant stalking, sparked an RP session that (I think) we were both enjoying.

    In reading the comments in this thread, however, I don't believe anyone who's spoken thus far is truly a proponent of diluting cross-faction RP into something toothless, vapid and without tension or weight. Furthermore, I'm fairly certain that  (as this topic seems to come up again and again and again), that none of our (that is the playerbase as a whole) Organizations maintain archaic and draconian association laws, if any moderation of association beyond the Common Sense Clause.

    So what, then, are we discussing here?

    Edit: clarity
    image
  • TeaniTeani Shadow Mistress Sweden
    I think what made me annoyed was my conversation with a that anonymous 'fresh-off-the-Slavers'-Isle'-person, who knows nothing about my character, making tiresome arguments about association as if one has to be a zealot if you're on the light side.

    Now, I could most likely dismiss this little person as someone who hasn't got a clue, but it's frustrating when it's basically just a tell conversation, one in a row of several (not sure why I'm being stalked) telling me I shouldn't interact with or even stand in the same room as people on the other side.

    Getting into some trouble with people you know, at least them asking you to be careful and not get too cosy, or asking what you're really up to, that's fine, but I thought we'd managed to steer away from random people 'reporting' unsavory association without really knowing the backstory.



  • AarbrokAarbrok Breaking things...For Science San Diego, CA
    edited January 2014
    As a character who skirts the line often on cross faction interaction but does not violate any rules per se. Aarbrok was created to be somewhat unconventional. His loyalty is a hundred percent to Duiran but his history is with Spinesreach. 

     Often he will speak to Spireans and do things that others will question him about. The kicker is that he always has an explanation in regards to his actions and never would participate in anything that would inherently harm Duiran or it's people. Typically it is something in regards to Advice, finding out how something works or role playing getting information in a manner that is less conventional. His role play places the perception of Enorianite and Bloodlochian behavior into extremes he dislikes and Spinesreach and Duiran as two different shades of gray with common grounds of distaste be it in muttering behind the scenes or publicly about the other two. The factional relationships are professional and for mutual advancement and necessity due to common interests and he can unwind north or in the wilds for role play given he does not consort with vampires or necromancers to the regards of alliance. The Spireans he associates with are the quirky living sort and he has been known to publicly grumble and test the undead and living. 

    It's a difficult fine line to walk and I advise if you are going to walk it maintain composure and prepare for questioning. If you can manage that it's a fun avenue for character growth
  • SetneSetne The Grand Tyrant

    Ingram said:
    "Oh my arms are suddenly lubed"
    TeaniPeriluna
  • DaingeanDaingean Xanhaal, probably.
    I play a zealot and still engage in cross factional rp.

    This is a character that still hates light-aligned syssin class, argues against the Azudim race almost entirely because their aesthetic feels wrong to him and sees almost anyone who doesn't at least admit that he's right within his sphere of reasoning as unforgivably stupid.

    There's the Gentle way of going about it - a character who flagrantly flaunted the fact that Enorian doesn't have association laws to allow a vampire to feed on him in exchange for social interaction and then got mad at those who wagged a finger, which should be frowned upon by Light/lifer/cycle/etc orgs, and there's the other way, of interacting with the other side with the understanding that there is a line between spirit and shadow, and crossing it will have various consequences.

    I don't exactly see the difficulty other people are having with it, but then, as I've stated before, the polarity of Aetolia is it's entire appeal to me, and the notion of wanting to hang with my bloodloch homies while meditating on the Great Spark has never called to me. One of the hardest things I had to do was stick to my character when Moirean reached out to him icly since they're related and such, but he's got nothing to say to her.
    Proudly fighting against Greytolia since the [approximately] 3/1/2010 at 18:00.
This discussion has been closed.