- Joined
- Jun 29, 2012
- Messages
- 4,439
- Reaction score
- 34,444
- Points
- 663
- Age
- 33
So, I should preamble this and say this thread will most likely be a loose collection of thoughts, concepts, and ideas, hopefully, strung together with the overarching need for a better understanding of my (and by extension other Lore Staff) stances on how to portray certain things. This chiefly involves Lothar Roleplay, but extends itself onto other modes of conflict generation and "Antagonism RP" as well (hence the title). I should say beforehand, that the community and expressions of the lore (if we consider each character an expression), benefit from having a pluriform expression. What this means is that most types of lore tend to have 5 valid degrees of interpretation or application, which if they are all represented, creates a more varied playing field where not every character is an identical cut-out of the same design approved by staff with a big green stamp. You are allowed to play your character the way you want, but I want to make sure that when I write this, I inform you of the various applications and more specifically what you should not be doing. This message is a personal message from me, informed by 10+ years of helming the massive roleplay scene's administration, but in general trend lines have some opinions and beliefs incorporated from other lore staff. The point of this thread is not to shame or deride anyone to act a specific way, but to make sure everyone has the information clearly and concisely available to make informed decisions about their characters, and to accept the consequences thereof. I will try to split the whole thread up so that when it is reviewed as a whole, individual paragraphs can be digested and discussed bite-size, instead of having to discuss the whole thread.
Antagonist, or Anti-Hero.
Let me start by saying that the server does not need an Antag. While in the past we might have applied some logic to the effect of "XYZ is a good antag person that makes things happen", conflict can generate itself based on opposing forces that don't strictly make them Antagonists in the way that an Antagonist is often interpreted. Antagonists have often been interpreted the way Sauron from Lord of the Rings is, an unambiguously evil individual, who does evil things, for selfish or evil reasons. I think that the pop culture notions people arrive at when they think of Antagonism, is harmful to one's own character if one views one's own Character as an Antagonist. I would really prefer if players instead viewed their character as a Protagonist, because when you see your character as a character who is fighting for something that is good, or remotely understandable or something that can be empathized with, you create space for other characters to work with your character towards those goals, or at least have interesting discussions on why such a goal should or should not be met. Versus, a Character like Sauron, which has only a binary approach: to join, or to defeat. (And since most players will tilt in favor of lawfully good characters, this will in most cases involve nuclear conflict of defeat). Nothing in lore is ever written in the form of ontological truths, except some, which are intentionally left vague. We know for example OOC that the Everwatcher is something "Greater" than all other Gods and even Dragons, because Dragons say that the Everwatcher was around before they were "born", but this is never proved in Lore, and left as speculation on the side. In contrast to this, in respect to Lothar Lore, both the Lothar and the Mages have a point. From a purely individual ethical stand point, the Lothar are narrowminded, tyrannical, and violent, but from societal ethical stand point, the Mages are selfish, naive, and shortsighted. There is no ontological correctness from pure cosmic truth, both the Lothar and Mages in their conflict, have a point, because Mages should be allowed to live by the laws of the land and the powers of gods, but the Lothar also have a point in that many of them are just proverbial bombs waiting to go off, and they are able to prevent a numerical greater harm by killing one mage, than letting it live and letting it kill 10+ peasants in a village because they lost control and a Demon possessed them. The nuance is in the application of their measured and precise state-violence. But back to the point, the Lothar Order isn't some insanity club for the psychotic and sadistic. It as an Order was born out of 3 constituent Orders, each of which had very valid reasons for why they did things:
Can I play a Psychopath?
Yes. If you really want to. But you should acknowledge that Psycho characters have very little intractability beyond just being attacked. There is no point in trying to "fix" a psycho, and there is no point in trying to talk to them because their internal logic isn't consistent or even stable. I personally think that Characters designed to be sadistic (arbitrary) psychos are by default bad characters, because there is no ethic, no deeper meaning, no purpose to what they are doing. Their actions are random and bereft of purpose or meaning, their reasonings nonexistent, and there is nothing there to engage with. However, if you are comfortable with just being a punching bag that few characters will positively interact with, you can play an arbitrary psycho. Generally speaking, I would express that mental illness is sometimes a topic done well in roleplay, and sometimes not so much. I personally always say "run far away from people who say their characters are "just insane", whenever the motivation of their character comes up, because that assessment is both sanist (a form of ableism) as well as romanticizing mental illness. We have a rule on the /Rules page: "We request Players do not incorporate mental illnesses into Characters", and while this holds true, there have been characters who had mental illness incorporated well without directly drawing attention to it. I would say that Erwin Braunschweiger (as much as I feel a lot of overly simplified idol worship of this character resulted in an incorrect early image of how to play a Purist) played a pretty good in-roleplay experience of what it's like to interact with someone who has PTSD, and in some cases BPD, without ever having to resort to writing this in a literal way on a Character Application, or expressing it in an OOC conversation. The effects of the struggles this Character dealt with were grounded in events in lore (BPD strongly influencing the Character's innate insecurities/trauma's associated with dogmatic religion and service. Erwin Braunschweiger was (is?) not a psychopath, but has moments where the character's internal logic becomes undone by episodes caused by grounded logic both in the lore and roleplay experiences of past traumas. The Character didn't just decide to do a crusade on Tryllelande "just because" or "because he was psycho xd shows you le epic image of the joker/oppenheimer omg that's me nuzzles ;PPPPP ~~¨", there was a lore informed reason (reality warping properties of owning an artifact Erwin was far too unstable to wield), and experience based trauma (seeking approval from a higher authority). It failed, and that made it all the better. So conclusion, again, can you play a psycho? Yes, but be informed you're effectively not approachable for any type of RP other than attacks you+. If you want to play a Character whose cruelty is informed by mental illness, do so while implying it through action, without labeling your character, because that very quickly becomes fetishization of mental illness as a trope. You will have only done a good job if others understand what your character's motivations/grounding is, and if you don't feel confident you're able to do it, there's no harm in not trying.
Citing Religion
This is a fairly short point. Religion can be cited to do a whole variety of things on Massive. In most cases, Religions only cover a few topics with claimed truths and realities, and some conclusions can be drawn from some Gods, however it's easy to go overboard. I'm going to try and cite a very simple example here, in how certain Gods are praised. If your Character is an Old Gods worshiper, and they scream "Bard's Might" right before they hit, that makes sense. Bard is a war/battle god, Bard blesses his followers in battle, and his followers pray to him for power to win any fight. If however a Character who is a Dogmatic Unionist screams "For Taal!" as they are about to hit someone in the head with a sword, they have kind of lost the plot of what Taal is about. The primary expression of Taal is hate to all forms of Magic and Occult (for grounded reasons, see the above), which, you would argue, causes it to make sense for you to scream something about Taal when you're about to hurt someone. But it's also important to remain cognizant of the core tenet of Taal's Divine Lesson: Magic is rot, but hate for rot is vice (hate is vice). In essence, invoking Taal's name when you're about to try and kill someone, is an internal contradiction because you're admitting to hate (by trying to kill someone), instead of finding other methods. The point of Unionism, is that it actually is a religion of inclusion, peace, and diplomacy (a far cry from the first version of genocidal ethnic supremacy Unionism, I know). Not many religions recommend violence as the first option, and many of them allow for alternatives (even Void Worship and Ordial Cultism). Religious justification, I think, is cited too often in lore as an end-all excuse for certain behavior, when a religion /rarely/ prescribes one particular solution, which can be experienced as frustrating to people trying to express a religion as /not/ a murderous cult. Your character can use religion as a flimsy justification for their violence or actions, but it should always be clear that that is a personally actioned interpretation, and that the real dogma actually prescribes something different. Either way, it always pays off to read the lore very carefully, and ask questions about the lore if you're not exactly understanding the nuance.
(Never) Always (Only) Violence
Always Violence is a commonly prescribed solution to problems that theoretically have multiple solutions. This kind of underscores the point above about Religion, in that the solution to many problems can often be found in Religions, but also a healthy dose of common sense. At first value, the Lothar will apply violence to the Occult as a solution, and this is an extremely valid application. (at least from the perspective of internal logic among Lothar), however it should be understood to be the more fanatical interpretation. It is said that the Krsnik kill infants in Kyizamok, but it's not entirely true. They take children from their parents, and primarily process them through a process of magical neutering, nullification, or control doctrines to ensure their Magic cannot hurt anyone. This is more difficult with adults obviously, but they tend to only kill Mages when they see no other recourse. Lothar take a more hostile stance, considering most if not all forms of Occult dangerous, and Grauwald take a more liberal approach. The reason why Lothar usually resort to extreme violence in lore and progressions, is because of steps that are normally more difficult to experience for regalia based roleplayers. However, only a small minority of Lothar Knights are psychos, and the vast majority of them feel very human emotions over what they are doing. You have to be of exceptional mental fortitude to feel fine after dozens of people scream for mercy and you still execute them when they haven't optically done anything wrong. There are plenty of Lothar who commit the most horrible violence, and suffer lifelong PTSD because of it, have trouble sleeping at night, or are downright depressed. Religion, purpose, and meaning provide some relief, but are never fully the answer, and it's okay for a Lothar to be remorseful of killing a Mage, to always ask "If only this Mage had accepted Grauwald control, if only they had accepted being severed from their Magic by the Aelrrigans, if only they had accepted Magic cleansing by Archon, and joined the fight against the Occult". You can argue moral misgivings with these opinions, and they are each and every one of them morally bankrupt in some way, but that's the point, there are alternatives to outright murder. In Conclusion, Antagonists that I would prefer to be seen as Protagonists, should find ways to pragmatically and functionally alter the most nuclear option (death) with alternatives that seem better, and if death has to be resorted to, to acknowledge the weight and meaning of that decision in some form (unless, of course, the Character is a sociopath, which is valid too, after all, some Ailor choose to sever their emotions) ((((But then they should sever all emotions, including happy/angry and horny ones, you degenerates!)))).
Personal Gripe
I am losing out of ideas to write about, but one last personal gripe I want to moan about, is what I feel the Flanderization of lore, cultures, or characters to serve single-objective purposes. A great example of this, is the Wirtem Culture. Wirtem Culture informs much of Lothar Order because of the Grauwald, but in general also Knight culture because the Wirtem are /the/ Knight Culture (if you disinclude the Aelrrigan connection with the Breizh). And I absolutely lose my mind if I see a Wirtem Character in a fight using slurs and curse words. Knight lore, Wirtem Lore, but perhaps also extended onto Conflict Characters, I feel, too easily forget or abandon the value of the concept of dignity. Think straight backed, trying to hide emotions, think saying nothing that would betray too much of a character's motivations or intentions until they come to fruition. I want to roll in a grave if I see a Wirtem Character licking their lips at the idea of shedding some blood right after giving a Kathar a slur-boogaloo that requires Staff to come in to correct and say we don't do slurs based on skin tone on Massive. This was obviously a hyperbole example, but I firmly believe that all players are capable of holding more than 5 principles on a character at once, but that some simply don't do so out of laziness, and it's a great first step to immediately get disregarded in a roleplay scene, playing Characters inherently contradictory to ground-support lore.
Anyway I hope some of these thoughts were helpful or cohesive or of use to someone, and I'm sorry for them being very incoherent and rant-like. My thoughts on antagonism/purism RP and other things like it are constantly evolving, and maybe somewhere down the line I will be able to streamline all of this in a much easier to digest topic.
Antagonist, or Anti-Hero.
Let me start by saying that the server does not need an Antag. While in the past we might have applied some logic to the effect of "XYZ is a good antag person that makes things happen", conflict can generate itself based on opposing forces that don't strictly make them Antagonists in the way that an Antagonist is often interpreted. Antagonists have often been interpreted the way Sauron from Lord of the Rings is, an unambiguously evil individual, who does evil things, for selfish or evil reasons. I think that the pop culture notions people arrive at when they think of Antagonism, is harmful to one's own character if one views one's own Character as an Antagonist. I would really prefer if players instead viewed their character as a Protagonist, because when you see your character as a character who is fighting for something that is good, or remotely understandable or something that can be empathized with, you create space for other characters to work with your character towards those goals, or at least have interesting discussions on why such a goal should or should not be met. Versus, a Character like Sauron, which has only a binary approach: to join, or to defeat. (And since most players will tilt in favor of lawfully good characters, this will in most cases involve nuclear conflict of defeat). Nothing in lore is ever written in the form of ontological truths, except some, which are intentionally left vague. We know for example OOC that the Everwatcher is something "Greater" than all other Gods and even Dragons, because Dragons say that the Everwatcher was around before they were "born", but this is never proved in Lore, and left as speculation on the side. In contrast to this, in respect to Lothar Lore, both the Lothar and the Mages have a point. From a purely individual ethical stand point, the Lothar are narrowminded, tyrannical, and violent, but from societal ethical stand point, the Mages are selfish, naive, and shortsighted. There is no ontological correctness from pure cosmic truth, both the Lothar and Mages in their conflict, have a point, because Mages should be allowed to live by the laws of the land and the powers of gods, but the Lothar also have a point in that many of them are just proverbial bombs waiting to go off, and they are able to prevent a numerical greater harm by killing one mage, than letting it live and letting it kill 10+ peasants in a village because they lost control and a Demon possessed them. The nuance is in the application of their measured and precise state-violence. But back to the point, the Lothar Order isn't some insanity club for the psychotic and sadistic. It as an Order was born out of 3 constituent Orders, each of which had very valid reasons for why they did things:
- The Krsnik descends from the early Krainivaya migrants from the Slavnogo state, where a brutally repressive Arcaneocracy committed genocide. They have lived experience of what it is like to be in a society where Mages rule everyone with an iron fist, a sentiment reinforced by Ailor history under Allorn Slavery.
- The Darkwald descend from the Sarnan and forestfolk of Tirgunn who have been on the frontlines of Vampires ever since their arrival, and more broadly speaking have a long history with battling against the ruinous forces of the Void Gods trying to manipulate Regalia and Ailor as a whole.
- The Grauwald was founded mostly on Unionist dogmatic principles and a literalist interpretation of the Creed of cursed burden (the idea that Mages are born with a curse that is a burden on their soul), but also the increase of magical terrorism.
Can I play a Psychopath?
Yes. If you really want to. But you should acknowledge that Psycho characters have very little intractability beyond just being attacked. There is no point in trying to "fix" a psycho, and there is no point in trying to talk to them because their internal logic isn't consistent or even stable. I personally think that Characters designed to be sadistic (arbitrary) psychos are by default bad characters, because there is no ethic, no deeper meaning, no purpose to what they are doing. Their actions are random and bereft of purpose or meaning, their reasonings nonexistent, and there is nothing there to engage with. However, if you are comfortable with just being a punching bag that few characters will positively interact with, you can play an arbitrary psycho. Generally speaking, I would express that mental illness is sometimes a topic done well in roleplay, and sometimes not so much. I personally always say "run far away from people who say their characters are "just insane", whenever the motivation of their character comes up, because that assessment is both sanist (a form of ableism) as well as romanticizing mental illness. We have a rule on the /Rules page: "We request Players do not incorporate mental illnesses into Characters", and while this holds true, there have been characters who had mental illness incorporated well without directly drawing attention to it. I would say that Erwin Braunschweiger (as much as I feel a lot of overly simplified idol worship of this character resulted in an incorrect early image of how to play a Purist) played a pretty good in-roleplay experience of what it's like to interact with someone who has PTSD, and in some cases BPD, without ever having to resort to writing this in a literal way on a Character Application, or expressing it in an OOC conversation. The effects of the struggles this Character dealt with were grounded in events in lore (BPD strongly influencing the Character's innate insecurities/trauma's associated with dogmatic religion and service. Erwin Braunschweiger was (is?) not a psychopath, but has moments where the character's internal logic becomes undone by episodes caused by grounded logic both in the lore and roleplay experiences of past traumas. The Character didn't just decide to do a crusade on Tryllelande "just because" or "because he was psycho xd shows you le epic image of the joker/oppenheimer omg that's me nuzzles ;PPPPP ~~¨", there was a lore informed reason (reality warping properties of owning an artifact Erwin was far too unstable to wield), and experience based trauma (seeking approval from a higher authority). It failed, and that made it all the better. So conclusion, again, can you play a psycho? Yes, but be informed you're effectively not approachable for any type of RP other than attacks you+. If you want to play a Character whose cruelty is informed by mental illness, do so while implying it through action, without labeling your character, because that very quickly becomes fetishization of mental illness as a trope. You will have only done a good job if others understand what your character's motivations/grounding is, and if you don't feel confident you're able to do it, there's no harm in not trying.
Citing Religion
This is a fairly short point. Religion can be cited to do a whole variety of things on Massive. In most cases, Religions only cover a few topics with claimed truths and realities, and some conclusions can be drawn from some Gods, however it's easy to go overboard. I'm going to try and cite a very simple example here, in how certain Gods are praised. If your Character is an Old Gods worshiper, and they scream "Bard's Might" right before they hit, that makes sense. Bard is a war/battle god, Bard blesses his followers in battle, and his followers pray to him for power to win any fight. If however a Character who is a Dogmatic Unionist screams "For Taal!" as they are about to hit someone in the head with a sword, they have kind of lost the plot of what Taal is about. The primary expression of Taal is hate to all forms of Magic and Occult (for grounded reasons, see the above), which, you would argue, causes it to make sense for you to scream something about Taal when you're about to hurt someone. But it's also important to remain cognizant of the core tenet of Taal's Divine Lesson: Magic is rot, but hate for rot is vice (hate is vice). In essence, invoking Taal's name when you're about to try and kill someone, is an internal contradiction because you're admitting to hate (by trying to kill someone), instead of finding other methods. The point of Unionism, is that it actually is a religion of inclusion, peace, and diplomacy (a far cry from the first version of genocidal ethnic supremacy Unionism, I know). Not many religions recommend violence as the first option, and many of them allow for alternatives (even Void Worship and Ordial Cultism). Religious justification, I think, is cited too often in lore as an end-all excuse for certain behavior, when a religion /rarely/ prescribes one particular solution, which can be experienced as frustrating to people trying to express a religion as /not/ a murderous cult. Your character can use religion as a flimsy justification for their violence or actions, but it should always be clear that that is a personally actioned interpretation, and that the real dogma actually prescribes something different. Either way, it always pays off to read the lore very carefully, and ask questions about the lore if you're not exactly understanding the nuance.
(Never) Always (Only) Violence
Always Violence is a commonly prescribed solution to problems that theoretically have multiple solutions. This kind of underscores the point above about Religion, in that the solution to many problems can often be found in Religions, but also a healthy dose of common sense. At first value, the Lothar will apply violence to the Occult as a solution, and this is an extremely valid application. (at least from the perspective of internal logic among Lothar), however it should be understood to be the more fanatical interpretation. It is said that the Krsnik kill infants in Kyizamok, but it's not entirely true. They take children from their parents, and primarily process them through a process of magical neutering, nullification, or control doctrines to ensure their Magic cannot hurt anyone. This is more difficult with adults obviously, but they tend to only kill Mages when they see no other recourse. Lothar take a more hostile stance, considering most if not all forms of Occult dangerous, and Grauwald take a more liberal approach. The reason why Lothar usually resort to extreme violence in lore and progressions, is because of steps that are normally more difficult to experience for regalia based roleplayers. However, only a small minority of Lothar Knights are psychos, and the vast majority of them feel very human emotions over what they are doing. You have to be of exceptional mental fortitude to feel fine after dozens of people scream for mercy and you still execute them when they haven't optically done anything wrong. There are plenty of Lothar who commit the most horrible violence, and suffer lifelong PTSD because of it, have trouble sleeping at night, or are downright depressed. Religion, purpose, and meaning provide some relief, but are never fully the answer, and it's okay for a Lothar to be remorseful of killing a Mage, to always ask "If only this Mage had accepted Grauwald control, if only they had accepted being severed from their Magic by the Aelrrigans, if only they had accepted Magic cleansing by Archon, and joined the fight against the Occult". You can argue moral misgivings with these opinions, and they are each and every one of them morally bankrupt in some way, but that's the point, there are alternatives to outright murder. In Conclusion, Antagonists that I would prefer to be seen as Protagonists, should find ways to pragmatically and functionally alter the most nuclear option (death) with alternatives that seem better, and if death has to be resorted to, to acknowledge the weight and meaning of that decision in some form (unless, of course, the Character is a sociopath, which is valid too, after all, some Ailor choose to sever their emotions) ((((But then they should sever all emotions, including happy/angry and horny ones, you degenerates!)))).
Personal Gripe
I am losing out of ideas to write about, but one last personal gripe I want to moan about, is what I feel the Flanderization of lore, cultures, or characters to serve single-objective purposes. A great example of this, is the Wirtem Culture. Wirtem Culture informs much of Lothar Order because of the Grauwald, but in general also Knight culture because the Wirtem are /the/ Knight Culture (if you disinclude the Aelrrigan connection with the Breizh). And I absolutely lose my mind if I see a Wirtem Character in a fight using slurs and curse words. Knight lore, Wirtem Lore, but perhaps also extended onto Conflict Characters, I feel, too easily forget or abandon the value of the concept of dignity. Think straight backed, trying to hide emotions, think saying nothing that would betray too much of a character's motivations or intentions until they come to fruition. I want to roll in a grave if I see a Wirtem Character licking their lips at the idea of shedding some blood right after giving a Kathar a slur-boogaloo that requires Staff to come in to correct and say we don't do slurs based on skin tone on Massive. This was obviously a hyperbole example, but I firmly believe that all players are capable of holding more than 5 principles on a character at once, but that some simply don't do so out of laziness, and it's a great first step to immediately get disregarded in a roleplay scene, playing Characters inherently contradictory to ground-support lore.
Anyway I hope some of these thoughts were helpful or cohesive or of use to someone, and I'm sorry for them being very incoherent and rant-like. My thoughts on antagonism/purism RP and other things like it are constantly evolving, and maybe somewhere down the line I will be able to streamline all of this in a much easier to digest topic.
Last edited:
