Character Resurrection Discussion

[MonMarty]

So, this would normally have been an actual google poll, but because the situation is too complex to be expressed in a set of questions, and in many ways, all factors come to down to a single question. This thread is written from my personal view and opinion, not one that I express is superior to any other. I express these as prompted by a suggestion from @Carlit0o as something worth exploring, but also something I will yield to the community majority decision. This question is:

Should characters be able to resurrect much easier to encourage more high-stakes rp albeit with drawbacks for the sake of roleplay.
​

Before judging and making a decision, please consider playing the devil's advocate and reading this post fully through. For the sake of discussion and preliminary polling, this thread will not have an actual poll in it. We want there to be a discussion first, so that players can be exposed both to staff stances, player stances, and for everyone to be able to see the "other side of the coin".

The Premise
So the premise is this: Other servers have systems in place for character resurrection, one of Massive's main competitors has a very free system of player resurrection and on other servers, the matter of magical resurrection is in the hands of players or freely accessible in more high-fantasy magic stakes. The depiction of community attitudes is in that context skewed. A lot of players feel for example that on Massive, players are more attached to their characters and have a hug-box attitude to character death, but this is often skewed because those opinions come from people who have access to instant character resurrection if they feel the death inflicted on them was not good-rp. This "right" is often held away from players on Massive, where characters die seemingly entirely out of hand. So what I propose is this:

MassiveCraft has an extremely pent-up safety complex concerning characters. Players on Massive are so scared of losing their characters that it cripples their flexibility in roleplay, and causes stale tavern rp because barely anyone is willing to take a risk or take a chance, at the off chance of failure.
​

The Magical Aspect
The Magical aspect of resurrection may be something that is hard to swallow on Massive because of it's (relatively) low fantasy setting. Many of the player characters have never seen or been subject to magic, and many of the magical events are depicted as divine aspects. A lot of fantasy aspects are extremely muted (like fairies being legend instead of fact), though other high fantasy aspects do exist, like magical stone snaked that guard ruins. For some, the appeal of the universe is that the fantasy aspects remain distant. You don't have to be confronted with magical stuff unless you search for it, and in many cases, it facilitates even repression. Were a more free stance on resurrection to be given, this high-fantasy would no longer be distant, but become permeated in every day life. Simple things such as combat rp to the death or noble plots would become framed in the inevitable eventuality of resurrection. So what I propose is this:

I believe in my personal ability, when aided by Lore Staff, to tie any potential resurrection mechanic to religion, and to profess the religions of the individual races as true "in a way". For example, Allar might find some magical means to resurrect people through Alchzech alchemy, while a manifestation of the Imperial Spirit does it for Unionists. I am confident that I can implement a resurrection mechanic without it suddenly forcing magic on every character, but I cannot take away the dissonance of character resurrection having an effect on how the people of Aloria (and the players subsequently) view death and the importance there-of.
​

The Concern of Community
Community concerns are also present however, because a resurrection system does not come without issue. Even in our current environment, player killing is sometimes forced by peer pressure, but in other environments where resurrection is present, the pressure to keep your character dead is sometimes also present in peer-pressure. There are obviously ways to mend this, we can make character resurrection come at a cost, but the ultimately, there will always be that pressure aspect to deliver a satisfactory experience to other players at your own expense in some situations. So what I propose is this:

I believe in my personal ability, when aided by Lore Staff, to create a system of drawbacks for resurrection, like a flat proficiency loss, a loss of limb, a loss of magical spells, mutations, memories and more, to balance off the free-cost of resurrection. That being said, we will not be able to fully take away character death pressure which is inherent in a conflict scenario.
​

The Fallacy of Freedom
A major argument in favor of resurrection clauses over kill perm rules held against Massive has always been "Having the ability to perform, regardless of the end-product of the act, is more valuable". Let's say on server A, you can freely resurrect after being shot in the head with a crossbow bolt. On server B, you need permission to fire the crossbow bolt, but when you have it, it's final. On server A, you may feel the resurrection of the character is anticlimactic, and at the end of the day worthless. It doesn't actually result in a long term victory besides an in-the-moment celebration, and the freedom at the end of the day is hollow because it is like tossing a stone in a pond and getting no real flooding of the banks out of it. The freedom to fire that bolt instead of asking for permission however is considered a benefit to some, and a detriment to others. So what I propose is this:

I believe in our ability to formulate an additional layer of perma-death rules in certain scenarios that reward really high stakes good rp, but leave most of the character resurrections to the players, albeit balanced with drawbacks. If a resurrection comes with a physical irp drawback and if the character has no memory of their death, the victory can last longer than in the moment. And perhaps, the in the moment victory is worthwhile.
​

The Wild Order of Progressions
Progressions have been becoming more wacky as of late, particularly to keep the "fresh" attributes of ever changing lore in effect. Essentially, we once started with really static occupation lores, but started expanding with fantasy aspects to keep things feeling relevant. An invasion with military means was done, then an invasion with military means with some magic, and the magical component was increased each time to "make something new" this is largely because the server's population itself does not engage in much high-stakes roleplay, largely because of our believe of character death being a scary thing and being final. What I propose thus is this:

A resurrection system would seriously tone down the fantasy element of progressions, because we no longer need to band-aid the lack of day-to-day plotting and high-stake rp in the player base with wacky progressions. With a resurrection aspect, the pressure on lore staff to organize "something happening" in lore will become less, as XYZ player might decide that instead of waiting for the next progression, they might simply start an assassination plot to keep them busy.
​

Character Death becomes meaningless
But is Character Death really meaningful this year? This is a really short opt. What characters have really died this year? What Character Death has ever meaningfully been perceived by the player base? Why would resurrection affect this in any way? What evidence is there to suggest that a resurrection system would cause any more or less OOC spite than the current kill perm system. What I propose is this:

Character Death is already utterly meaningless. Any characters that have "high profile" presence never die because the players don't want to lose them. Even if a resurrection system were in place, the value of character death would not be altered as perceived by third parties.
​

Finally, MassiveCraft is about choices
As ironic as it sounds, while MassiveCraft is often accused of being too restrictive on the players both in lore and in rules, the server is actually about the freedom of choice. Not about the freedom of choice to act in whatever way you like, but the freedom to choose to become subject to the roleplay you want. On MassiveCraft you always have the freedom to walk away from roleplay (within reason) and you have the freedom to dictate the end of your character (within reason) as long as your character is perceived in a co-operative sense. Massive is about not having certain roleplay forced on you, and that may unfortunately become the case with a resurrection system. With such a system in place, character kill perms would be loosened considerably, and while it won't result in purge-esque scenarios of bandits roving into the tavern and death capping everyone, it certainly will result in some players being forced to acknowledge character death and diminishing in line with the cost of resurrection. So what I propose is this:

I believe in our ability to salvage the freedoms of players to opt out of this resurrection system, at the price of not being allowed to participate in any character death of other characters. There has to be a golden way to allow players who really don't want to deal with the anguish of a post-death scenario to be free of such constraints, but also deny them the freedom to inflict it on others if they chose to step out of it. I believe that whatever we do, Massive's freedom of deciding what roleplay you are subject to should be protected, and not scrapped for the sake of individual and temporary elation.
​

In concluding, again, I want to remind everyone that this is not a plan or decision in any form. Carlito and I discussed at a very facile level the idea of resurrection, but I also expressed very clearly that the consent of the playerbase at large in a reasonable level would be necessary (so not like, 51% Brexit Referendum numbers, but more like, an 80% majority). This is purely a discussion to preface the actual poll, which we may not even have if the response here is too negative. I will also express that if this poll were to become a thing and if the resurrection were to become a thing, it would not work retroactively. Characters who are already dead would not be resurrect able, so that should not influence the decision taking.

If you reply, please preface your points/test with "I agree to having character resurrection" or "I disagree to having character resurrection", and then please explain why on both accounts. Replies without reasoning will be deleted.

​

 

[Jonificus]

I agree to having character resurrection. However this does not mean every character should be able to be resurrected. Resurrection itself should have grave (no pun intended) consequences no matter the nature of how it came to be.

The route best suited for resurrection itself should also be a journey that provides plenty of RP for the characters pursuing it. It should be difficult. It should be rare. It should be an accomplishment. If we have every three character deaths revived then it loses its meaning, players will subconsciously not fear death anymore, and all the risk will dissipate and thus make things awfully dull.

All in all, I agree but also disagree at the same time. I don't think it is something I will be utilizing for my own roleplaying principles' sake, though I understand people's desire to bring back dead characters.

 

[BillyTheScruffy]

I disagree to having character resurrection.

I think if what is aimed for is incentive for characters to take more risk, it can be approached at a completely different angle. For example, why not just relax Guard punishments so that a death penalty is even more severe a punishment rather than make the death penalty in Regalia laughable as a prospect? All I can see coming from this is the Guards losing even more face in the City because at that point, all forms of Guard punishment becomes temporary and non-serious. I'll go into more detail later if needs be.

 

[Mistles]

I agree to having character resurrection as character deaths are, at the moment, completely redundant. Nobody wishes nor wants their character to die permanently as all players spend so much time and dedication simply making apps. As stated, this stagnates roleplay.
If there was a balance, where a character death means a loss of memories, a limb, or proficiency points, many would be more open to having their characters be killed, and it'll definitely create more roleplay as well as more character development for everyone.

 

[Jonificus]

I disagree to having character resurrection.

I think if what is aimed for is incentive for characters to take more risk, it can be approached at a completely different angle. For example, why not just relax Guard punishments so that a death penalty is even more severe a punishment rather than make the death penalty in Regalia laughable as a prospect? All I can see coming from this is the Guards losing even more face in the City because at that point, all forms of Guard punishment becomes temporary and non-serious. I'll go into more detail later if needs be.

Click to shrink...

Precisely why I think resurrection should be very rare and with great consequences for the character. First off, if your character's been executed and brought back later that means you cant really show it off in public, or let them be known cause then the law knows theres a necromancer in town whose running around bringing back dead criminals. Heretical dark magic, it'll be something you REALLY have to think through if you want.

Besides, the rituals should be damn near impossible without great sacrifice and personal risk for those involved in the resurrection.

 

[Battlebrawn]

I agree to having character resurrection because it would encourage a lot more high stakes, lessen the pressure of progressions being how characters stand out, bring in whole new RP situations to be dealt with (like revenge arcs, dealing with the drawback, being retaught what happened, etc) and more meaning/importance for the various religions.

This last part interests me most because I would love to see how the different religions differ (Unionist vs Void, Old Gods vs Estel etc) and have reasons for non-religious characters to 'see the light' or a reason for active religious characters to be praying and such.

The only thing that worries me is how the guard charters might deal with resurrecting characters that they've captured/executed, but having a drawback upon resurrecting would likely stop an immediate reaction and I trust in Lore Staff to come up with solutions for in-game reactions to this mechanic.

 

[Sozzer]

I agree to having character resurrection.

I'm inclined to agree with @Jonificus here - resurrection would be good, but in a somewhat limited form where it takes a considerable effort to achieve (and perhaps a non-player-accessible way to make it not always possible; so that big important plot deaths being permanent makes sense without making the entire possibility of rejection a moot point). If every death can instantly be resolved and fixed then it kind of makes death a total non-issue; it should be an impactful event even if not permanent.
Maybe also have memories of the immediate moments before death and such be lost, so that assassinations don't end with "Now that I'm back alive, I remember x was my killer".

Edit to clarify: Having a way to make death permanent might also resolve @BillyTheScroofy 's concerns, since it could be used by guards and the like. Your thoughts on that, Billy?

 

[Jonificus]

I agree to having character resurrection as character deaths are, at the moment, completely redundant. Nobody wishes nor wants their character to die permanently as all players spend so much time and dedication simply making apps. As stated, this stagnates roleplay.
If there was a balance, where a character death means a loss of memories, a limb, or proficiency points, many would be more open to having their characters be killed, and it'll definitely create more roleplay as well as more character development for everyone.

Click to shrink...

If character deaths are redundant then there are a lot of misconceptions about when to kill in roleplay. A "successful" character death should bring about plenty of RP and character development for those around the deceased. It in itself should be a mini-arc and treated with great respect by all players involved for the guts it takes to depart with a character surely many people have grown attached to.

 

[HodlinG]

I agree to having character resurrection

Though I mostly mirror @Jonificus's opinion of it that it should be a rare thing that requires a lot of roleplay and should probably be closed off in some cases, To avoid the problem that @BillyTheScroofy has prescribed. Perhaps there can be ways to prevent somebody's resurrection entirely, so a death sentence by the Guards is still a meaningful thing.

The rarity is an important thing to stress because I don't think it would be good to cheapen death at all, lore wise. Resurrection should be something that many characters do not see or even know could possibly exist. Which makes it all the better when they find out it does, that could be an avenue for even more plots, like, planning to resurrect a loved one who has died, for example.

 

[TheyCalledMeKiko]

I disagree to having character resurrection purely because in a system where anyone can be resurrected then it may devolve into carnage. On the flip side if you allow specific characters to be brought back with lore staff, the good old 'there's no point in trying cus lore staff won't let me' comes in and people complain about the decision being bias.

I believe that we already have it in a sense through undeadism and by introducing ressurection, the interesting drawbacks and traits of undeadism become (in my eyes) null and void.

I believe it would make the satisfaction of risky assassinations or plots meaningless and people could just resurrect the character you just killed and then kill you, leading to vicious cycles.

I believe that character resurrection would undermine the foundations of most of Alorias faith and create loopholes and questions that would plague lore q&a. For example if individuals essential to the Great Way were revived it diminishes the idea of looking forward to the afterlife. As well as this, if faiths can resurrect important people, why aren't the fantastically detailed dead individuals in our lore just going to have been resurrected for all the things they've done.

I believe that instead: A more thorough system for character death rules that allows for characters who work in guard charters, to main street businesses, to kathar cults, to have equitable opportunity to kill or be killed. This does not mean guards would die as frequently as death cults but it does mean there is a chance for casualties on both sides. Perhaps time windows for surrendered consent could also help protect players of both sides while also presenting opportunity? Say if someone kills a cult leader, the cult has x amount of OOC time to exact revenge before consent becomes un-surrendered

Ultimately, I think a large part of the problem is the fear of communication between player and community leaders or guards, to build plots. Plots being in my eyes one of the largest producers of death in roleplay. If there was a guide or simple set of hints, such as marty's Crime guides, that show how to properly create storylines proactively I think the server would really benefit.

Just my opinion

 

[Sozzer]

I agree to having character resurrection

Though I mostly mirror @Jonificus's opinion of it that it should be a rare thing that requires a lot of roleplay and should probably be closed off in some cases, To avoid the problem that @BillyTheScroofy has prescribed. Perhaps there can be ways to prevent somebody's resurrection entirely, so a death sentence by the Guards is still a meaningful thing.

The rarity is an important thing to stress because I don't think it would be good to cheapen death at all, lore wise. Resurrection should be something that many characters do not see or even know could possibly exist. Which makes it all the better when they find out it does, that could be an avenue for even more plots, like, planning to resurrect a loved one who has died, for example.

Click to shrink...

ew hod. what a big gay.

But yeah in all seriousness, I'm pretty much on the same page as Hod here. Rarity should definitely be a major point, as well as resurrection sometimes being outright impossible.

 

[Anarchizm]

I disagree to having character resurrection.

I believe that character resurrection will encourage more throwaway characters than there already are. Though more high-stakes rp would come from it. It would be at the cost of realism. Consequences of ones actions might be taken into account less. The current rules are fine as is in my opinion. If something like this were to go through I personally feel like it'll make death somewhat meaningless because you can always come back, to be frank. Our current death rules are unique and are a piece what set apart our server apart from others.

 

[MonMarty]

I disagree to having character resurrection.

I think if what is aimed for is incentive for characters to take more risk, it can be approached at a completely different angle. For example, why not just relax Guard punishments so that a death penalty is even more severe a punishment rather than make the death penalty in Regalia laughable as a prospect? All I can see coming from this is the Guards losing even more face in the City because at that point, all forms of Guard punishment becomes temporary and non-serious. I'll go into more detail later if needs be.

Click to shrink...

Would clausing it to in any and all cases deny rezzing from guard rp change your mind?

 

[Legoclub22]

I agree to having character resurrection.

I think a system as described in the final example, where you can opt in and out, is the best way for it to work. It would give consequence to killing other characters, make you responsible for your actions. At the same time, you would be unable to be punished needlessly by other players.
Maybe have certain rules like we already have for kill perms, so that doing x waives your resurrection right, etc.

As for an IC way of it working, I feel like going through players would lead to the best RP. If players could make and play a Necromancer who is responsible for resurrecting those who have died(Possibly for a hefty fee,) that would require some IC interaction in order to reap the benefits.

As for a drawback, what if it wasn't felt after resurrection, but felt before? For instance, the only way to be resurrected is to bind your soul to a physical object or something, which has several negative effects to you while it is out of your physical self. It could be easily visible, paler skin, milky eyes? You'd act different, be less competent and have slower reaction times. Net proficiency loss?

Maybe once you're killed, you could have to have someone find you a new body? That could presumably be done outside of real Roleplay, or maybe a playerquest type thing would have to be done to steal a body from a graveyard. Grave digger RP could be fun. Otherwise, you could just find someone and choke them to death, since physical harm done to the body you re-inhabit would affect you.

 

[HodlinG]

I disagree to having character resurrection.

I believe that character resurrection will encourage more throwaway characters than there already are. Though more high-stakes rp would come from it. It would be at the cost of realism. Consequences of ones actions might be taken into account less. The current rules are fine as is in my opinion. If something like this were to go through I personally feel like it'll make death somewhat meaningless because you can always come back, to be frank. Our current death rules are unique and are a piece what set apart our server apart from others.

Click to shrink...

I don't quite see how this would positively effect throwaway characters, as, if they're going to be resurrected they're likely not meant as throwaways. Generally, those are meant to be killed easily, so, somebody could keep making as many throwaways as they want and have them be killed off however much they want, whether or not this system is in place. Perhaps you can make it so throwaways can't benefit from character resurrection for some reason, but, in the end, Somebody could just make another throwaway.

Though I can partially agree with the assertion that our death rules are unique. But this could be made unique in its own way through interesting lore and a good degree of rarity and requirement to roleplay the resurrection out to make it intriguing and inspire plots.

This system can make it so people take more risks and continue to engage in interesting plots even if they might die, seems like a win-win to me as long as care is taken to not cheapen death and especially execution. While dead is dead will always be simply the end.

 

[Sozzer]

I disagree to having character resurrection purely because in a system where anyone can be resurrected then it may devolve into carnage. On the flip side if you allow specific characters to be brought back with lore staff, the good old 'there's no point in trying cus lore staff won't let me' comes in and people complain about the decision being bias.

I believe that we already have it in a sense through undeadism and by introducing ressurection, the interesting drawbacks and traits of undeadism become (in my eyes) null and void.

I believe it would make the satisfaction of risky assassinations or plots meaningless and people could just resurrect the character you just killed and then kill you, leading to vicious cycles.

I believe that character resurrection would undermine the foundations of most of Alorias faith and create loopholes and questions that would plague lore q&a. For example if individuals essential to the Great Way were revived it diminishes the idea of looking forward to the afterlife. As well as this, if faiths can resurrect important people, why aren't the fantastically detailed dead individuals in our lore just going to have been resurrected for all the things they've done.

I believe that instead: A more thorough system for character death rules that allows for characters who work in guard charters, to main street businesses, to kathar cults, to have equitable opportunity to kill or be killed. This does not mean guards would die as frequently as death cults but it does mean there is a chance for casualties on both sides. Perhaps time windows for surrendered consent could also help protect players of both sides while also presenting opportunity? Say if someone kills a cult leader, the cult has x amount of OOC time to exact revenge before consent becomes un-surrendered

Ultimately, I think a large part of the problem is the fear of communication between player and community leaders or guards, to build plots. Plots being in my eyes one of the largest producers of death in roleplay. If there was a guide or simple set of hints, such as marty's Crime guides, that show how to properly create storylines proactively I think the server would really benefit.

Just my opinion

Click to shrink...

Ehh. I'm not so sure that making death a bit more common would really help, since people generally just don't want characters to die. I might have just misunderstood, so if I'm interpreting your suggestion of death rules wrong let me know. But most of the other issues are easily dealt with - have it be a rare and difficult process to achieve a resurrection and it being a common thing ceases to be an issue. Allow ways to make it impossible to resurrect someone, or even just certain people naturally being unable to in-lore, and the important people thing stops.
As for risky assassinations, what assassinations? They don't really happen period as it is.

 

[BillyTheScruffy]

Would clausing it to in any and all cases deny rezzing from guard rp change your mind?

Click to shrink...

Perhaps but eh, I find character resurrection almost in its entirety a pandering to "hugbox" roleplayers and honestly don't feel as if its going to change any of the stagnation that the server is currently experiencing. As it stands, I believe the biggest issue in roleplay isn't characters being scared to take risks, its characters not wanting to take risks. There is an extreme stigma towards characters having an 'evil' side to them, which subconsciously peer pressures characters being, prima facie, goody two shoes whose most evil act was calling someone a prick in the tavern.

I would be much more okay with having a clause preventing characters from being revived after a guard induced death, certainly, but even just the concept of resurrection to me just feels futile if for the sake of providing roleplay. If anything its just going to precipitate the unhealthy attachment to people's own characters that already exists. Just my two cents.

Furthering on from that, perhaps I missed it in the post but, if resurrection was permitted on the server, would kill perms still exist for players to deny?

 

[TheBioverse]

I agree with the idea of resurrection. But hear me out, it's a little grey.

Simply put, I RP in the niche of Massive where I believed that the Prime/Ott always held the power to bring people back. Because God. I also knew that Marty would be very selective in ever allowing that kind of plotline, if at all. So in my eyes, the resurrection of a character was always a possibility IRP. There was simply a lack of system to allow it - which could now change.

On one hand, I played Saud Nazari, Arcane Mentor to a group of 8+ actively played characters in the Arcane Office. His death was at the hands of an Arken Possession, which drove (to my knowledge) an incredibly satisfying Arken-Killer Revenge Plotline for those close to him. Saud is spoken about even now by his pupils, now much older and wiser than they were - and it's a very wholesome feeling, to have felt like he left that legacy behind. I really respect his Character Death.

On the other hand, there are instances with characters like Sophie Perrot who I felt were taken too early as a consequence of trying to instigate demon RP outside the Slums. Though Sophie isn't my character, I had a great emotional investment in her as a long-standing character. And to me, she'd died off-screen in a Guard Battle. Despite my respect for my own character's death, I was wholly prepared to make an IC Deal with Demon God Dad to have her brought back.

Sometimes character death is well-planned, refreshing and a great send-off. Sometimes it's haphazardly splayed and characters don't go out as intended to by their players.

Character Death perms don't need to change, Guard Punishments don't need to change - as long as the resurrection process is earned, it won't feel like a joke or a face-slap to anyone. And it may give chance for a Character to go out the 'right' way as opposed to a way that leaves the player/character's social circle dissatisfied.

 

[Vivo_Et_Vincam]

I disagree to having character resurrection.

I think if what is aimed for is incentive for characters to take more risk, it can be approached at a completely different angle. For example, why not just relax Guard punishments so that a death penalty is even more severe a punishment rather than make the death penalty in Regalia laughable as a prospect? All I can see coming from this is the Guards losing even more face in the City because at that point, all forms of Guard punishment becomes temporary and non-serious. I'll go into more detail later if needs be.

Click to shrink...

I disagree to having character resurrection for this reason, and another,
Personally if I am faced with a situation to kill my character I take it with a grain of salt, even if I am attached, I did something that ended in failure, that developed myself AND OTHERS in the server. People who get attached to characters to the extent of not being able to let go, is their choice. I believe that character death, is it. They die. I believe the player should have the ability to play characters close in a way perhaps however, like son, which we already do.

IF WE HAD TO HAVE CHARACTER REBIRTH: I suggest a system of "undead," perhaps where dark and arcane "magic" can bring them back, for the loss of another. Aka; if @Jonificus died as Hengest, another could "take his place" in death, IF both bodies are still in not-rotted condition. This means only characters that have affected someone so much they would die for them, or characters with so much influence to have their friends kill someone to bring them back, can do this. Not only, but the "undead" person would typically be shunned, as they would have some mark stating of their past death like a tattoo. It would be against traditional Unionism, and even Estel, perhaps not Arken worship. I'll expand into this later.

 

[Sozzer]

I disagree to having character resurrection for this reason, and another,
Personally if I am faced with a situation to kill my character I take it with a grain of salt, even if I am attached, I did something that ended in failure, that developed myself AND OTHERS in the server. People who get attached to characters to the extent of not being able to let go, is their choice. I believe that character death, is it. They die. I believe the player should have the ability to play characters close in a way perhaps however, like son, which we already do.

IF WE HAD TO HAVE CHARACTER REBIRTH: I suggest a system of "undead," perhaps where dark and arcane "magic" can bring them back, for the loss of another. Aka; if @Jonificus died as Hengest, another could "take his place" in death, IF both bodies are still in not-rotted condition. This means only characters that have affected someone so much they would die for them, or characters with so much influence to have their friends kill someone to bring them back, can do this. Not only, but the "undead" person would typically be shunned, as they would have some mark stating of their past death like a tattoo. It would be against traditional Unionism, and even Estel, perhaps not Arken worship. I'll expand into this later.

Click to shrink...

Undead is already a thing. Honestly, it could probably even be expanded somewhat to allow a degree of accessibility for existing characters (to the non-murder-crazy forms that is). But ultimately @MonMarty would be the only one who can really say whether that'd fit into the concept of Undead as it exists on Massive.

 

[Suzzie]

I agree to character resurrection.
Character death is really a suffocating fear that looms over you as you have to decide on how to react to specific scenarios. This becomes more intense with attachment to character- I've suffered from that myself and it's killed some real interesting paths of roleplay I could have taken.

That being said, there should be certain restrictions in place to mandate it. A time period should have to pass before the character can be resurrected, something like a month. On top of that, there should be scenarios where a character cannot be resurrected, such as guard punishment. If that becomes a restriction, then I suppose the death penalty should become rarer- but it will be made more meaningful in the process. Now I don't think this should be super rare or super complicated, however it also shouldn't be free candy- Make it so your average person can have access to it. I've felt that some restrictions for things can feel pretty daunting and intimidating. That's just me though, I guess. It would be interesting if there was a sort of give and take if you are resurrected. Perhaps sacrificing proficiency or weakening the character in some way, to leave a mark of significance. They have to change their life after dying.

I suppose some OOC restrictions are needed for sure:

• Approved character sheet
• Significantly played character/old (I.e not a day old or very recent)
• Not a guard execution

There are just what came to mind though.

A more thorough system for character death rules that allows for characters who work in guard charters, to main street businesses, to kathar cults, to have equitable opportunity to kill or be killed. This does not mean guards would die as frequently as death cults but it does mean there is a chance for casualties on both sides.

Click to shrink...

Isn't that what kill perms have always sought to accomplish? Even if we have rules like this, I don't think it solves the issue- People don't want to die. If anything, being forced to let go would breed resentment. I'd sure be pretty upset if I lost my character, considering I go out of my way not to kill anyone. It's not really that people want an equal chance of dying, they literally just don't want to die. That's what I observed at least.

Perhaps but eh, I find character resurrection almost in its entirety a pandering to "hugbox" roleplayers and honestly don't feel as if its going to change any of the stagnation that the server is currently experiencing. As it stands, I believe the biggest issue in roleplay isn't characters being scared to take risks, its characters not wanting to take risks.

Click to shrink...

But wouldn't you not want to take a risk if you could lose so much? I really think it's a mix of both- players unwilling to give up a character they enjoy and characters not dumb to charge into death. In my experience, the roleplay rules in a way forced me into that sort of hugbox. I wanted to avoid any instigation at any cost so I wouldn't lose my characters. I feel like the opportunity for resurrection would lessen that "well I don't want to die" feeling. Obviously make it limited so we don't get any "haha I'M BACK TO CHALLENGE YOU FOR A REMATCH". I've seen so many "no kill perms" that it's become a meme, so if anything, I think this is worth a trial run, and if it doesn't work, axe it.


I suppose anyone can just knock my argument with "but you're not active!" but I'm actually dipping my toes back in and trying to get involved. This isn't me trying to give anyone a hard time.

 

[HodlinG]

I personally don't think Undeath needs to even be discussed when it comes to this, Undead characters are an avenue for people who want to play undead characters, it is its own niche. And though it could be used for the resurrection of a character, this system is really quite different.

But, that's just my opinion and not an attempt to stifle anything from the undead angle, of course.

 

[Wumpatron]

I disagree to having character resurrection.

I think if what is aimed for is incentive for characters to take more risk, it can be approached at a completely different angle. For example, why not just relax Guard punishments so that a death penalty is even more severe a punishment rather than make the death penalty in Regalia laughable as a prospect? All I can see coming from this is the Guards losing even more face in the City because at that point, all forms of Guard punishment becomes temporary and non-serious. I'll go into more detail later if needs be.

Click to shrink...

I agree to having character resurrections

And I did have that thought come to my head first Billy, but then after a minute of thinking I came to an alternative to guard execution.

If it comes a place where resurrection exists then wouldn't the guard have a system in place to counter the ability for a dangerous criminal to return? Which is why I think that if this system were put in the place why not having a system of locking someone away in a dark cell and throwing away the key so to speak? That way the punishment remains permanent on the guards side. Just a thought, but I am curious on what your thoughts are on it.

 

[HodlinG]

That being said, there should be certain restrictions in place to mandate it. A time period should have to pass before the character can be resurrected, something like a month. On top of that, there should be scenarios where a character cannot be resurrected, such as guard punishment. If that becomes a restriction, then I suppose the death penalty should become rarer- but it will be made more meaningful in the process. Now I don't think this should be super rare or super complicated, however it also shouldn't be free candy- Make it so your average person can have access to it. I've felt that some restrictions for things can feel pretty daunting and intimidating. That's just me though, I guess. It would be interesting if there was a sort of give and take if you are resurrected. Perhaps sacrificing proficiency or weakening the character in some way, to leave a mark of significance. They have to change their life after dying.

Click to shrink...

While I agree with much of this, I do still hold onto the assertion that resurrection ought to be rare as to not change the dynamic of death personally and culturally. At the least, lore wise it should be something that is really not easily attainable. But, perhaps, when it comes to actual characters, it should be quite easy within the stipulations you have listed?

 

[RememberTheGame]

I disagree with it, the death of a character has always pushed the drive for something new. Once old flames die out, you can experiment and form new ideas to help build a more constructive or elaborate character. Take if I hadn't had my first main killed over defending a sanguine, I would have never joined guard work and made Natasha Celyreos which eventually was killed off to work on new characters. If we could bring back anyone even if it was under a strict standard, it would make more sense to make a new character.

Freya Lo & the deathlings is a fun example of resurrection, because the idea was experimented on instead of just reviving it. It promoted some progression, and would leave a mark. If we could bring someone back at the expense of something severe, surely it'll be an interesting narrative but I don't believe it'll be convienient to anyone unless it's an idea that is experimented with. Death is a plague that do us part, so make haste with the scars left; the brain can only handle so much. That's my two cents anyway.

 

[Scribbe]

I agree (to an extent) with character resurrection.

In the main, I think that a system of resurrection to lessen the impact of a character death is ultimately a good thing in pressing players to get their characters involved in higher stakes roleplay. However, I do think that there are a number of conditions that ideally should be met for IC resurrections to work in a way that's productive and enticing for players to actually make use of it.
These conditions are:

• Scarce resurrections;
  • I think there should be a cooldown time between resurrections, and a limit to the number of resurrections a character can go through before they end up dead for good. Enabling players to just resurrect whenever they die will have a reverse effect of lowering the stakes. If I can die as many times as I want and just come back anyway, why does meaningful RP matter to me? I also think that anti-resurrection mechanisms should be made available, and limited to, very specific groups, such as the Divine Militia or the Violet Order, to prevent guard-related executions being negated easily.
• Lore-managed resurrections;
  • I think that resurrections should be managed foremostly by Lore Staff. As a member of Lore Staff myself, I see how this may appear biased towards my own groups. However, I also don't think that any other groups are responsible enough to handle this in a way that won't be self-serving or otherwise biased towards themselves. I firmly believe that only Lore Staff are capable of making the necessary decisions of whether a character deserves a resurrection, or if they are able to be resurrected at all in the first place.
• Higher rewards;
  • As cynical as I may sound, I do believe that the "hugbox", danger-void behaviour of many players towards their own characters can't be changed without offering something significant in the way of a gain, to encourage them to pursue things that may have otherwise ended in permanent death or crippling without the availability of coming back from it. I also think these should extend more than being named in a Progression Post as someone who rolled highly. A player won't pursue a reward they can't actually use; this has been shown time and time again in the preference for ICly useful skills like Unarmed Combat or Heavy Bows Combat among the general playerbase, as opposed to Progression-central ones like Underworld Knowledge or Admiral Knowledge.
• High, enforced costs;
  • A player shouldn't be able to just get away with being shot in the head with an arrow, and then getting up and walking away because they were able to come back to life. There should be an absolute, unavoidable cost to continuing to exist, be it a Proficiency point reset, a physical maim, or a permanent aesthetic change that cannot be hidden by any means. To that end, I think a burden of responsibility should be placed not only on Lore Staff to enforce costs, but the general playerbase as well, to prevent other players from abusing the mechanisms set in place meant to benefit them.

In short, I hold to the belief that a mechanism of resurrection should be made available to the playerbase to encourage them to move out of their comfort zone and pursue goals that they otherwise would have never touched with a ten foot pole. However, I also have my suspicions about players seeking methods to abuse these mechanisms, and believe that such a system should be heavily regulated to prevent people from gaming the system by cycling through death and life repeatedly, or from nullifying the significance of their death just because they could come back anyway.

Those are my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Lizehrd]

I agree with character resurrection, as with the idea of religion-tied Resurrection. I think it would be best to have it be tied with a lore-story type of deal. The character should have at least a minimum amount of time dead before they can apply to a lore staff to have them be revived through a lorestory, but having to bear permanent mental scarring and a physical weakness tied to the resurrection.

 

[BillyTheScruffy]

But wouldn't you not want to take a risk if you could lose so much? I really think it's a mix of both- players unwilling to give up a character they enjoy and characters not dumb to charge into death. In my experience, the roleplay rules in a way forced me into that sort of hugbox. I wanted to avoid any instigation at any cost so I wouldn't lose my characters. I feel like the opportunity for resurrection would lessen that "well I don't want to die" feeling. Obviously make it limited so we don't get any "haha I'M BACK TO CHALLENGE YOU FOR A REMATCH". I've seen so many "no kill perms" that it's become a meme, so if anything, I think this is worth a trial run, and if it doesn't work, axe it.

Click to shrink...

No, I would weigh up the benefits of what my character wants to do, opposing the cons, and if the plan is smart and the plan has an inherent benefit rather than "Hah! I proved I was better than X by killing him! Ha! I stole from the Emperor's bedroom! Hah!" then I would go with it. Many characters have taken risk before (Ulric Typhonus with his coup for example) and hasn't ended up executed. Only characters that have put no thought behind their criminal actions other than just to be a nuisance to the guards tend to be executed, you know that from experience. Furthermore, as I outlined in my second post, I genuinely believe that this whole concept of 'But what if I were executed for what I want to do?' excuse is, purely, an excuse. The issue in rp right now is over attachment to characters and too much of a reliance on others for roleplay with most players not having a desire to drive a narrative, it has absolutely nothing to do with character death imo. As for the 'No Kill Perms' meme, I am absolutely 100% in favor of allowing players a choice as to whether their own character dies or not from player characters, and I don't think introducing resurrection should change that.

I agree to having character resurrections

And I did have that thought come to my head first Billy, but then after a minute of thinking I came to an alternative to guard execution.

If it comes a place where resurrection exists then wouldn't the guard have a system in place to counter the ability for a dangerous criminal to return? Which is why I think that if this system were put in the place why not having a system of locking someone away in a dark cell and throwing away the key so to speak? That way the punishment remains permanent on the guards side. Just a thought, but I am curious on what your thoughts are on it.

Click to shrink...

Refer to my post in reply to Marty.

 

[BulbousDevourer]

I agree with having character resurrection in some form. Not only would it take away somewhat from the problem of rampant boring tavern RP since everyone's too afraid to lose their characters, but it would allow for interesting development for allies of the deceased character, as they go through the process of attempting to bring back their friend or loved one, not to mention potential conflicts arising from this, as others potentially try to stop the resurrection. Additionally, it could potentially allow for necromancer characters, depending on how the system was put in place.

However, if a negative side effect of ressurection were to be put in place, I would rather it be anything but a physical maim, such as loss of a limb. Such maims tend to kill fun rather than create it IMO. Instead, I think something like an unhideable aesthetic change to the characters appearance, a loss of proficiency points, or a loss of memory would be preferable, because while they're still negatives, I think they would ultimately provide more fun and promote more interesting plot lines in the long run than crippling your character.

 

[Jonificus]

Scarce resurrections;

• I think there should be a cooldown time between resurrections, and a limit to the number of resurrections a character can go through before they end up dead for good. Enabling players to just resurrect whenever they die will have a reverse effect of lowering the stakes. If I can die as many times as I want and just come back anyway, why does meaningful RP matter to me? I also think that anti-resurrection mechanisms should be made available, and limited to, very specific groups, such as the Divine Militia or the Violet Order, to prevent guard-related executions being negated easily.

Click to shrink...

Yeehaw to that, brother. Besides, isn't cremation the most common way of disposing bodies in Regalia? As @Wumpatron said the guards could also fix their problem with throwing a character in a high security prison.

Resurrections should have plenty of requisites that need to be fulfilled before you can even embark on the quest !

 

[HodlinG]

Yeehaw to that, brother. Besides, isn't cremation the most common way of disposing bodies in Regalia?

Click to shrink...

Though the problem then becomes, what if somebody attempts to cremate your character's body after having ''killed'' them? Though, I'm assuming that would likely fall under regular kill perms rules at that point.

 

[Shayin]

I disagree with having character resurrection. I believe character resurrection will have the opposite of the intended effect and will make the problem worse.

The stakes in any situation are certainly the highest when there is the most to lose. If you remove the concept of loss in a system, there are no stakes. Without any stakes, there is no meaningful conflict, because both sides do not stand to lose anything (this is broadly speaking; outlier cases where stakes in resurrection could be confabulated, but I think the exception should not form the rule). Nobody would care about Jon Snow or Danaerys Targaryen or Eddard Stark if there was no grave threat that George Martin could kill them off them in the next book/season. It's why Game of Thrones is so engaging; anyone can be on the chopping block. We see this with Eddard Stark. No rescues, no dragon interventions during the execution, no resurrections. Because of this, the audience knows that there is no assurance that Tyrion, Jon, or Dany will live to the end of the final season. And that's what makes it so appealing.

The Roleplayer, on an OOC basis, feels little at stake in the current system because they have an exterior knowing based on OOC knowledge that nobody can kill their character without their permission and that the guards are known to be lenient (at least to my knowing), so they're free to have their character traipse around not really caring about portraying social convention or genuine fear.

This solution makes things worse, because whereas before it was only the player knowing OOC that their character couldn't pull the trigger of a crossbow without permission, now the character knows IC that their actions will have no impact. Why should Selwynn Crassian desire or even try to bury an arrow in William Coen's left eye-socket if he knows that William will simply be resurrected? If he knows William can come back, he might not even pull the drawstring back. In return, he might mouth off to William fully knowing "Hah, execution? Not today!"

Maybe this solution can be balanced to have more detriments to the resurrected character, but this doesn't negate the fact that this creates a sense of pointlessness in the actions and intentions of characters. A lore universe constructed on the idea that anyone and everyone can return to life loses any sense of gravity in the eyes of the characters and audience. In my mind, this solution legitimizes the current problem and even promotes it overtly, rather than discourage it or eliminate it altogether.

I don't have a meaningful solution to this problem, which really sucks because I understand the frustration in the current system. It's one of the things that personally discourages me from Roleplay. The current system has many detriments and flaws, but I feel that when compared side by side, this is a step down the ladder and will worsen the issue being brought forward.

 

[Film_Noir]

I disagree to having character resurrection because I'm looking for elements of realism and consequence in regards to how characters act and react in roleplay, and I think that resurrection would breach this far too much. The fear of death and losing your character is (or should be) a very real consequence, that both your character can take into consideration and act accordingly to, and also that you as a player can OOCly appreciate the significance of. So, when Freya Lo returned, for example, I felt a little ripped off, that the whole notion was a bit meme-like, and rendered her first death and the stories attached to it completely meaningless. If Travis Black came back, then all of Chris' efforts to rebuild the family would also seem meaningless, because "lolol" Travis has returned. Suppose Basium Lampero returned, then his death at the hands of Anahera would have been not a significant and lasting scene. Death is very final and memorable moments are created because of it.

 

[HodlinG]

I disagree with having character resurrection. I believe character resurrection will have the opposite of the intended effect and will make the problem worse.

The stakes in any situation are certainly the highest when there is the most to lose. If you remove the concept of loss in a system, there are no stakes. Without any stakes, there is no meaningful conflict, because both sides do not stand to lose anything (this is broadly speaking; outlier cases where stakes in resurrection could be confabulated, but I think the exception should not form the rule). Nobody would care about Jon Snow or Danaerys Targaryen or Eddard Stark if there was no grave threat that George Martin could kill them off them in the next book/season. It's why Game of Thrones is so engaging; anyone can be on the chopping block. We see this with Eddard Stark. No rescues, no dragon interventions during the execution, no resurrections. Because of this, the audience knows that there is no assurance that Tyrion, Jon, or Dany will live to the end of the final season. And that's what makes it so appealing.

The Roleplayer, on an OOC basis, feels little at stake in the current system because they have an exterior knowing based on OOC knowledge that nobody can kill their character without their permission and that the guards are known to be lenient (at least to my knowing), so they're free to have their character traipse around not really caring about portraying social convention or genuine fear.

This solution makes things worse, because whereas before it was only the player knowing OOC that their character couldn't pull the trigger of a crossbow without permission, now the character knows IC that their actions will have no impact. Why should Selwynn Crassian desire or even try to bury an arrow in William Coen's left eye-socket if he knows that William will simply be resurrected? If he knows William can come back, he might not even pull the drawstring back. In return, he might mouth off to William fully knowing "Hah, execution? Not today!"

Maybe this solution can be balanced to have more detriments to the resurrected character, but this doesn't negate the fact that this creates a sense of pointlessness in the actions and intentions of characters. A lore universe constructed on the idea that anyone and everyone can return to life loses any sense of gravity in the eyes of the characters and audience. In my mind, this solution legitimizes the current problem and even promotes it overtly, rather than discourage it or eliminate it altogether.

I don't have a meaningful solution to this problem, which really sucks because I understand the frustration in the current system. It's one of the things that personally discourages me from Roleplay. The current system has many detriments and flaws, but I feel that when compared side by side, this is a step down the ladder and will worsen the issue being brought forward.

Click to shrink...

Here's a pitifully short response to your really heavy and loaded take on this system here: Would Scribbe's suggestion of the lore staff handling resurrections serve to help this? It would provide the sense of rarity I think is needed within resurrection lore of any type and also make it so players aren't simply killing their characters left right and center, because whether or not they're resurrected would depend on whether or not lore staff think that would help provide a good further narrative? Or provide leeway for characters who might have died unfairly or anticlimactically.

 

[Conflee]

I agree to have character resurrections.

I do think, like was implied though, that it should remain a very restricted system, with religious-fueled methods being more accessible and perhaps some kind of gritty "Cheap and Nasty" solution for for Criminally aligned elements. And by "Cheap and Nasty" I dont mean easy. It has to be instigated by others, and is still about as much work as the religious sorts, but without the pretense of religious blessing, and much greater drawbacks to the mentality or physicality of the revived.

Criminals are the most likely to use this, and their options need to be open to a few paths to take with it. They might go for the religious option, swearing off their ways and truly converting, for a whole story arc around their new enlightened life. But they might also try to abuse the cheap and nasty solution to get back into shit for revenge, or to continue their ambitions, slowly losing themselves as they hack off chunks of who they are for the sake of dragging their life out longer.

On top of that, the Government and Guards need a proper, heavy way to put people down. Some characters commit such crimes that it needs a permanent solution to be a threat against being evil. Set limits, make it difficult and costly to the character, and im all for it.


We also need a lore reason as to why the world isnt filled with re-risen people after every war.

 

[Sozzer]

• Lore-managed resurrections;
  • I think that resurrections should be managed foremostly by Lore Staff. As a member of Lore Staff myself, I see how this may appear biased towards my own groups. However, I also don't think that any other groups are responsible enough to handle this in a way that won't be self-serving or otherwise biased towards themselves. I firmly believe that only Lore Staff are capable of making the necessary decisions of whether a character deserves a resurrection, or if they are able to be resurrected at all in the first place.

Click to shrink...

Ehh. This is something I'm not so sure on, in large part because this is effectively a case of "nothing changes". There've been a host of ways to get resurrections to occur through lore staff - soul clocks, older variations of soul magic in general, and some other assorted things have all popped up which allowed revival.
But as far as I'm aware, they never happened. Not once. Even soul magic just performing body-switching without any sort of revival only happened a handful of times. All that sort of thing was just untouched.
In the end I find it hard to say that it being decided purely by staff rather than being something theoretically achievable by anyone is a good thing - yes, some staff oversight is needed, but making it begin and end with "staff decision" dissuades people from ever actually trying unless they already know staff members and know for sure they'll have that support - which then leads back into the whole other issue of how you can ensure that characters are still given fair weight when they aren't known by any major staff members. Hell, even then it never got done, at least to my knowledge, despite existing and having been repeatedly referenced as something to discuss with lore staff.
Probably doesn't help that any character important enough to be looked at by a bunch of major lore staff and get the go-ahead for resurrection is also highly likely to be given the "such a significant death shouldn't be reversed because of the gravity of the situation" thing and run a very real risk of being denied for being too important to revive.

 

[BillyTheScruffy]

With such a system in place, character kill perms would be loosened considerably, and while it won't result in purge-esque scenarios of bandits roving into the tavern and death capping everyone, it certainly will result in some players being forced to acknowledge character death and diminishing in line with the cost of resurrection.

Click to shrink...

I also feel a little hard done by that this wasn't brought up as a major point in the original post. What this means is a lessening of the character kill perms rule, but to what extent? Will I now have to give complete leeway to assassination plots for people wanting to kill my characters? Will regular players run the risk of their character's being stabbed to death if they walk into the slums? This is a pretty big point that has been glossed over with this overarching resurrection idea.

I don't know about anyone else, but even with resurrection in place, I still wouldn't want my characters to die, especially when I would have no control how he or they do so and especially where it can be as a result of being cornered in some street by criminal characters whom are online and outnumber William or Rodderick 4 to 1 just because its early morning or whatever. That would just make me irate to no end even with resurrection in place.

 

[Shayin]

Would Scribbe's suggestion of the lore staff handling resurrections serve to help this?

Click to shrink...

No. It is implied in Marty's solution that under such a system, kill perms would be slackened or removed to promote the new idea of resurrection. Removing kill perms but at the same time making resurrection rare or hard to acquire makes everyone suffer the disadvantages of not being able to opt-out of their character's maiming, injury, death, etc. while at the same time choking everyone's access to the feature part of the system.

In short, the system cannot function if everyone has the ability to fire the crossbow's bolt point-blank at another character's head yet only some have the ability to bring their character back from such a death. This is the worst-case scenario out of the scale of "bad," "worse," and "worst".

 

[HodlinG]

I also feel a little hard done by that this wasn't brought up as a major point in the original post. What this means is a lessening of the character kill perms rule, but to what extent? Will I now have to give complete leeway to assassination plots for people wanting to kill my characters? Will regular players run the risk of their character's being stabbed to death if they walk into the slums? This is a pretty big point that has been glossed over with this overarching resurrection idea.

I don't know about anyone else, but even with resurrection in place, I still wouldn't want my characters to die, especially when I would have no control how he does so.

Click to shrink...

Exactly this. I think the current kill perms work fine considering the whole idea is that a character is taking more risk, which ideally could result in them doing something that surrenders consent through the current system. But, being open to being killed by random people isn't ever good.

 

[Caduceus_Clayy]

So, this would normally have been an actual google poll, but because the situation is too complex to be expressed in a set of questions, and in many ways, all factors come to down to a single question. This thread is written from my personal view and opinion, not one that I express is superior to any other. I express these as prompted by a suggestion from @Carlit0o as something worth exploring, but also something I will yield to the community majority decision. This question is:

Should characters be able to resurrect much easier to encourage more high-stakes rp albeit with drawbacks for the sake of roleplay.
​

Before judging and making a decision, please consider playing the devil's advocate and reading this post fully through. For the sake of discussion and preliminary polling, this thread will not have an actual poll in it. We want there to be a discussion first, so that players can be exposed both to staff stances, player stances, and for everyone to be able to see the "other side of the coin".

The Premise
So the premise is this: Other servers have systems in place for character resurrection, one of Massive's main competitors has a very free system of player resurrection and on other servers, the matter of magical resurrection is in the hands of players or freely accessible in more high-fantasy magic stakes. The depiction of community attitudes is in that context skewed. A lot of players feel for example that on Massive, players are more attached to their characters and have a hug-box attitude to character death, but this is often skewed because those opinions come from people who have access to instant character resurrection if they feel the death inflicted on them was not good-rp. This "right" is often held away from players on Massive, where characters die seemingly entirely out of hand. So what I propose is this:

MassiveCraft has an extremely pent-up safety complex concerning characters. Players on Massive are so scared of losing their characters that it cripples their flexibility in roleplay, and causes stale tavern rp because barely anyone is willing to take a risk or take a chance, at the off chance of failure.
​

The Magical Aspect
The Magical aspect of resurrection may be something that is hard to swallow on Massive because of it's (relatively) low fantasy setting. Many of the player characters have never seen or been subject to magic, and many of the magical events are depicted as divine aspects. A lot of fantasy aspects are extremely muted (like fairies being legend instead of fact), though other high fantasy aspects do exist, like magical stone snaked that guard ruins. For some, the appeal of the universe is that the fantasy aspects remain distant. You don't have to be confronted with magical stuff unless you search for it, and in many cases, it facilitates even repression. Were a more free stance on resurrection to be given, this high-fantasy would no longer be distant, but become permeated in every day life. Simple things such as combat rp to the death or noble plots would become framed in the inevitable eventuality of resurrection. So what I propose is this:

I believe in my personal ability, when aided by Lore Staff, to tie any potential resurrection mechanic to religion, and to profess the religions of the individual races as true "in a way". For example, Allar might find some magical means to resurrect people through Alchzech alchemy, while a manifestation of the Imperial Spirit does it for Unionists. I am confident that I can implement a resurrection mechanic without it suddenly forcing magic on every character, but I cannot take away the dissonance of character resurrection having an effect on how the people of Aloria (and the players subsequently) view death and the importance there-of.
​

The Concern of Community
Community concerns are also present however, because a resurrection system does not come without issue. Even in our current environment, player killing is sometimes forced by peer pressure, but in other environments where resurrection is present, the pressure to keep your character dead is sometimes also present in peer-pressure. There are obviously ways to mend this, we can make character resurrection come at a cost, but the ultimately, there will always be that pressure aspect to deliver a satisfactory experience to other players at your own expense in some situations. So what I propose is this:

I believe in my personal ability, when aided by Lore Staff, to create a system of drawbacks for resurrection, like a flat proficiency loss, a loss of limb, a loss of magical spells, mutations, memories and more, to balance off the free-cost of resurrection. That being said, we will not be able to fully take away character death pressure which is inherent in a conflict scenario.
​

The Fallacy of Freedom
A major argument in favor of resurrection clauses over kill perm rules held against Massive has always been "Having the ability to perform, regardless of the end-product of the act, is more valuable". Let's say on server A, you can freely resurrect after being shot in the head with a crossbow bolt. On server B, you need permission to fire the crossbow bolt, but when you have it, it's final. On server A, you may feel the resurrection of the character is anticlimactic, and at the end of the day worthless. It doesn't actually result in a long term victory besides an in-the-moment celebration, and the freedom at the end of the day is hollow because it is like tossing a stone in a pond and getting no real flooding of the banks out of it. The freedom to fire that bolt instead of asking for permission however is considered a benefit to some, and a detriment to others. So what I propose is this:

I believe in our ability to formulate an additional layer of perma-death rules in certain scenarios that reward really high stakes good rp, but leave most of the character resurrections to the players, albeit balanced with drawbacks. If a resurrection comes with a physical irp drawback and if the character has no memory of their death, the victory can last longer than in the moment. And perhaps, the in the moment victory is worthwhile.
​

The Wild Order of Progressions
Progressions have been becoming more wacky as of late, particularly to keep the "fresh" attributes of ever changing lore in effect. Essentially, we once started with really static occupation lores, but started expanding with fantasy aspects to keep things feeling relevant. An invasion with military means was done, then an invasion with military means with some magic, and the magical component was increased each time to "make something new" this is largely because the server's population itself does not engage in much high-stakes roleplay, largely because of our believe of character death being a scary thing and being final. What I propose thus is this:

A resurrection system would seriously tone down the fantasy element of progressions, because we no longer need to band-aid the lack of day-to-day plotting and high-stake rp in the player base with wacky progressions. With a resurrection aspect, the pressure on lore staff to organize "something happening" in lore will become less, as XYZ player might decide that instead of waiting for the next progression, they might simply start an assassination plot to keep them busy.
​

Character Death becomes meaningless
But is Character Death really meaningful this year? This is a really short opt. What characters have really died this year? What Character Death has ever meaningfully been perceived by the player base? Why would resurrection affect this in any way? What evidence is there to suggest that a resurrection system would cause any more or less OOC spite than the current kill perm system. What I propose is this:

Character Death is already utterly meaningless. Any characters that have "high profile" presence never die because the players don't want to lose them. Even if a resurrection system were in place, the value of character death would not be altered as perceived by third parties.
​

Finally, MassiveCraft is about choices
As ironic as it sounds, while MassiveCraft is often accused of being too restrictive on the players both in lore and in rules, the server is actually about the freedom of choice. Not about the freedom of choice to act in whatever way you like, but the freedom to choose to become subject to the roleplay you want. On MassiveCraft you always have the freedom to walk away from roleplay (within reason) and you have the freedom to dictate the end of your character (within reason) as long as your character is perceived in a co-operative sense. Massive is about not having certain roleplay forced on you, and that may unfortunately become the case with a resurrection system. With such a system in place, character kill perms would be loosened considerably, and while it won't result in purge-esque scenarios of bandits roving into the tavern and death capping everyone, it certainly will result in some players being forced to acknowledge character death and diminishing in line with the cost of resurrection. So what I propose is this:

I believe in our ability to salvage the freedoms of players to opt out of this resurrection system, at the price of not being allowed to participate in any character death of other characters. There has to be a golden way to allow players who really don't want to deal with the anguish of a post-death scenario to be free of such constraints, but also deny them the freedom to inflict it on others if they chose to step out of it. I believe that whatever we do, Massive's freedom of deciding what roleplay you are subject to should be protected, and not scrapped for the sake of individual and temporary elation.
​

In concluding, again, I want to remind everyone that this is not a plan or decision in any form. Carlito and I discussed at a very facile level the idea of resurrection, but I also expressed very clearly that the consent of the playerbase at large in a reasonable level would be necessary (so not like, 51% Brexit Referendum numbers, but more like, an 80% majority). This is purely a discussion to preface the actual poll, which we may not even have if the response here is too negative. I will also express that if this poll were to become a thing and if the resurrection were to become a thing, it would not work retroactively. Characters who are already dead would not be resurrect able, so that should not influence the decision taking.

If you reply, please preface your points/test with "I agree to having character resurrection" or "I disagree to having character resurrection", and then please explain why on both accounts. Replies without reasoning will be deleted.

​

Click to shrink...

Totally agree with there being resurrection, of course with consequences. In some DND campaigns I have run, every time someone is resurrected something can happen which slowly effects the player, or instantly effects them from the moment of coming back. This can be them being reborn but going mad instantly, having their memories erased (some of them if not all of them), being possessed or mutated as they come in from all the magical energies seeping into their bodies, becoming cursed, or becoming a Undead. Of course, in no way should any of these be used here, but I think it would be interesting to have different types of resurrection, if it is used IC, rather than just Undeadism or Phantasma, adding to a larger mechanic and amount of roleplay scenarios to the table upon them coming back. And depending on what was used to kill them some might have a higher chance of being caused than another, like coming back possessed by something from the void if they were killed in some sort of void ritual, or losing their memories if their head had been removed. And, if it was added, there could also be multiple different ways of bringing a person back, each one either easier or more difficult, perhaps with the easier the method, the more likely the side effects.