Archived Roleplay Rule - Value Of Life

[Conflee]

Hello! I will just get into the meat of this. This issue is one that has been addressed with prior changes to maim/kill perm rules, where if someone tries to stab your character in the chest, you gain perms equal. Examples being if someone tries to poison you and it would result in death, you gain permission to kill them.


This was added, in part, to deal with characters who acted, from an IC point of view, haphazardly and stupidly. The players knew, either subconsciously or otherwise, their character was safe no matter what, so they intervene in situations, or picked stupidly bad fights, just for 'lols'. As soon as it went against them they refuse to give any perms, making them essentially consequence-free for their bad IC Decisions.

This is an extension to a fix to this issue, and though some might say its a given, its not a written rule, and would be argued endlessly if it was tried. I have seen similar rules in other non-minecraft related RP groups, so here it is: "Value of Life".

An example of Value of Life would be as follows:

Tom is a man who got into a fight and was captured. He is being held for questioning. He continues to insult his captors with a knife to his neck, but refuses to give maim or kill perms. As it stands now, players would have to make a ticket, and get a staff to sort it out manually, with varied results depending on which staff it is probably.

With Value of Life in place, if Tom's captors state flat out "We will gut you if you keep insulting us." and he continues, they can take perms based on Value of Life. If the player playing Tom refuses this, staff would need to be brought in still, but the results would generally be the same since the rules are set in place.



What this forces players to do is actually, genuinely consider their character's situation, and act accordingly. You cant laugh death in the face and hide behind Kill Perm rules on the technicality that your character did not attempt to cause fatal harm to another's.

This also should have some wording about stipulations, such as negotiable terms. You cant tell someone "Do this or I kill you" just to force player's hands OOCly. he character has to be fully at the mercy of the party requesting VoL perms. These situations would be taken to staff to sort out. Players can also negotiate the terms of their character's punishment, for instance, if you dont feel your character's death is earned, or progresses the plot, you can ask for mitigations, like loss of fingers. I would count loss of a tongue as on par with loss of a limb in this regard due to how much it hinders a character.

The level of injury would have to be proportionate to the offence and how often the issue has come up. For example, if someone withholds information, refusing to cooperate during interrogation, they might be susceptible to losing a finger or two. Where as, if this is the eighth time they have attacked your group and you have captured them several times and tortured them, and they keep doing it, it is time to request Value of Life and ask Staff to grant Kill Perms.


If the character shows no value of their own life, why should it be upheld OOCly behind a veil of nonsense.


In the end, while there is potential for this to be abused, there is for the current normal kill/maim perm system as well. Staff intervention can be called for any issues still, so it works out. And in the end, I feel it will force people to take life and death situations for their characters more damn seriously. Because after a while it gets cringe and edgy when perms are denied repeatedly in situations where a character should be killed and would be killed if it weren't for the OOC Shield of perms.



Sorry if I came off as salty in this, I really haven't even experienced this much, but its an issue I have seen come up and its annoying sometimes. I feel like addressing it before it crops up again is probably better than waiting for a major incident to draw drama.

@Lore tagged because relevant to Lore Department.

 

[Conflee]

Addon: This isnt just a matter of realism or taking situations seriously, not solely. If my character threatens to take your fingers if yours keep talking crap, I want permission to take those fingers if you keep going. Denying perms OOCly makes my character looks like a wimp ICly because hes blocked by an OOC wall. Not a real example from RP, but an example that I could see coming up.

If you cant threaten someone and be taken seriously, then that a huge tool for gangs and criminals that is stripped away because OOC nonsense.

 

[Speedl0rd]

isn't this fearp tho. I thought it was already enforced

 

[Conflee]

isn't this fearp tho. I thought it was already enforced

Click to shrink...

I think it is in a minor way but its not really specifically mentioned on the rules page. This is basically just a dive into it to point out more major things and try to get it to be an actual official rule.

 

[Speedl0rd]

I think it is in a minor way but its not really specifically mentioned on the rules page. This is basically just a dive into it to point out more major things and try to get it to be an actual official rule.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, it's kinda just etiquette lol

 

[Gwyndo]

Yeah, basically instead of just having Fear RP enforced, the Value of Life rule allows you to harm people who're ignoring Fear RP because "there's nothing you can do".

I notice a lot of people aren't at all afraid of taking on - without any preparation - extremely frightening adversaries such as Vampires, Warrior-Orcs, etc, and then when it comes to said adversaries obliterating them, they hold up that OOC shield.

And if you're in a hostage situation, and the hostage doesn't care, their friends don't care, no one listens to any demands, and nearly everyone rushes and attacks and struggles as if you're not in a position to end the lives of one of their friends.

These are just a few more examples of course. I want to hear what staff think of this thought; perhaps there's already rules in place to stop exactly this kind of stuff.

 

[Erzly]

all this boils down to : the other person is doing some bad rp. If you find that someone's doing this, best thing to do is call it GodRp and not roleplay with them again. you can always say your gang have done the bad stuff to people other than that character, just to NPCs, as it's understandable that some people genuinely don't want their characters dead, no matter how smug they are (everyone gets a little attached to their character). i like the system we have now, and i cant say i've ever experienced staff being dragged in bc im salty that someone wants to protect the work they've put in to a character.
but , then again, i havent combat RPed in a while, maybe times have changed?

 

[Conflee]

all this boils down to : the other person is doing some bad rp. If you find that someone's doing this, best thing to do is call it GodRp and not roleplay with them again. you can always say your gang have done the bad stuff to people other than that character, just to NPCs, as it's understandable that some people genuinely don't want their characters dead, no matter how smug they are (everyone gets a little attached to their character). i like the system we have now, and i cant say i've ever experienced staff being dragged in bc im salty that someone wants to protect the work they've put in to a character.
but , then again, i havent combat RPed in a while, maybe times have changed?

Click to shrink...

Thats why I slapped in all the stuff about negotiable terms and proportional value. So it cant just be used to force death on people. Any forced death would probably still need staff to come in and look at it, and multiple warnings OOCly from them like "If you keep doing this your char will die" similar to how Guards handle it now.

 

[GoodDreamer]

I've watched people hide behind perms during a raid, using them to avoid attacks, tank hits that would down a tiger, and flat out ignore any threats made to a hostage. It was mind-numbingly aggravating, and it dragged the rp on with OOC bickering from both sides. The VoL rule would prevent that from ever happening again.

 

[FireFan96]

The issue I see is both sides not coming to an agreement on the logical outcome of an event.

If your character is doing something that would logically land them in hot water, they should have to deal with it. If you are laughing at a gang that has swords to you and you say, "no kill/maim perms" and then proceed to talk smack, you shouldn't be able to hide behind an OOC wall of perms. That's god rp in my book.

Likewise, if a prisoner is cooperative with their captors, they shouldn't receive insane punishments like losing a hand for doing what they were told.

But in the end, it shouldn't be an issue if players go about things logically and think about consequences instead of riding on some OOC rule set in place as to not have kill sprees for the lols.

In short, players should be able to moderate themselves.

 

[Conflee]

Likewise, if a prisoner is cooperative with their captors, they shouldn't receive insane punishments like losing a hand for doing what they were told.

But in the end, it shouldn't be an issue if players go about things logically and think about consequences instead of riding on some OOC rule set in place as to not have kill sprees for the lols.

In short, players should be able to moderate themselves.

Click to shrink...

Thats why I want the rule more or less. People cant moderate themselves a lot of times, even if its sub conscious people think they are safe. Heck I have done it before without realizing. I was just casually going through shit talking and then I realized, "Oh shit, if I did this IRL I would be dead af"

The proportional value part should keep any overt unnecessary maiming from happening as well.

 

[Proudbucket]

When a situation like the ones which you describe arise just (OOC) ask the other party where they want to go with that. If you don't like the direction then negotiate an outcome and if there is no agreement I just break rp.

 

[NoRezForYou]

I think it should not only depend on the situation. Sure someone who is rather new to the server might start a fight with some sort of Orc Warrior. Said new person might whip out a dagger and start slashing and stabbing at the Orcs chest. I don't agree that the Orc should always retaliate in such an intense matter. It was a mere bar fight, granted it escalated but what would come from the maim or the death of the attacker? A simple "Btw I killed a guy" To the orcs friend. And now the attacker has lost any character development he may gain over for god knows how long. Or/and he missed out on any opportunities to be had. Though this does not mean I disagree with the rule. I personally think it's a small step to the right direction but I think a bit of context is needed. I don't agree with maiming or Killing characters without the owners permission over small things.

I also don't agree with the many responses of "They're a god gamer. Break RP and never RP with them again"

This sort of thing has starterd to damage the server in my eyes with many people simply pointing at another person and saying "They're god gamers don't RP with them" Granted God RP is annoying and frankly Ruins RP but it leaves the God RPer to either eventually leaving the server having most people treat them nothing more than dirt. (Because that's really how most casual Rpers treat god Rpers) ...

...I will edit the rest of my opinion once I am on my PC cause my phones about to die but To be continued

 

[GoodDreamer]

When a situation like the ones which you describe arise just (OOC) ask the other party where they want to go with that. If you don't like the direction then negotiate an outcome and if there is no agreement I just break rp.

Click to shrink...

Sometimes, the RP in question involves a dozen or so people and has lasted an hour/s until problems arise. You become much more reluctant to break rp in situations like that. In the event that you still want to break it, everyone needs to give permission to void rp, including the other side who thinks they're winning.

 

[Magivore]

Many people are saying they are unsure if such a rule exists. While not seemingly directly stated, it seems implied heavily enough to certainly already have a grasp on the world of roleplay as a whole already. In fact, this whole section does that with a strong enough point to make it almost unnecessary.
https://wiki.massivecraft.com/Character_Death

I see this as a potentially large issue. When such a rule as this is put into play, I would expect to immediately hear about an unpopular character on the server being slain or maimed beyond the point of playability. While it's irritating to have people hide behind those walls, I have seen examples of people grouping up solely to try and push for the death of a character they did not like in the forms of raids and 'muggings gone violent,' especially in the form of 'coincidentally' stumbling upon buddies or having a fight expand by having bystanders join in. This mentality doesn't create a productive sewer gang, but will instead create a pack of wolves that want to feast on unpopular character after unpopular character. I have been on the receiving end of being told I hide behind permissions, and it isn't fun nor easy to defend myself from such accusations. Could you imagine how hard that would be to avoid if I wasn't known on the server and if my writing skills were less than average, or worse yet, if I was generally disliked? If a person continually spits on their captors, they're an instigator and are implying that they're surrendering maim permissions by willingly placing themselves in a very dangerous situation. What if I am being assassinated by a group of people over a spilt drink? I'm a victim and are protected by the rules to preserve my permissions, so long as I don't spit and threaten my opponents beyond "my daddy will sue you." If you have such an issue with someone who fights but won't get hurt, it really is easier than you think not to fight or deal with them by using /ignore. You're not missing out on good RP if you don't like them at all. In my opinion, you really shouldn't be doing raids and hostage situations from the start if no one is willing to admit permissions or that they're being at least a little inconsiderate by raiding anyways.

I see why you want such a rule, but this actually already exists as a whole section on the forums. Instead, I recommend you push for that specification since the rules technically already have that covered, or just ticket staff a little more often if it's that big of a concern.

 

[Conflee]

I see why you want such a rule, but this actually already exists as a whole section on the forums. Instead, I recommend you push for that specification since the rules technically already have that covered, or just ticket staff a little more often if it's that big of a concern.

Click to shrink...

If the same effect can be had simply by adding 3-4 sentences into the existing rules I would be fine with this as well. Just something specific to cite when disputes come up, that way it isnt so up in the air depending on which staff you happen to get.

 

[Proudbucket]

including the other side who thinks they're winning.

Click to shrink...

And that is where the problem is, there are no winners and losers in rp. It is a cooperative game. As when it comes to voiding rp... no one can force you to endure unpleasant rp. Politely say that you are not interested in keeping with that story and leave.

 

[GoodDreamer]

And that is where the problem is, there are no winners and losers in rp. It is a cooperative game.

Click to shrink...

When you participate in an unscripted raid, there is usually an undisputed winner. Generally, it's the side that has less injured characters. People who enter unscripted rp generally want to win, but thankfully, most of these people tend to know when they've lost or should lose, but I think we're talking about those who don't know the limits. I don't want to play around with the "no winners" thing, it's really not worth my time beyond this.

when it comes to voiding rp... no one can force you to endure unpleasant rp. Politely say that you are not interested in keeping with that story and leave.

Click to shrink...

In a 1v1 or a similar fight, this is totally fine. It likely has been short, annoying, and disruptive.

When 2 large groups meet in a specified location, especially a base, it's a whole different story. You've likely been prepping your group OOC for weeks, arranging for the fight to take place at a specific time so that everyone on both sides can join. Everyone has invested hours into the rp before it's even begun, especially the attackers. There's also a good chance that the attacking side (and defending side, in the likelihood that they know and wish to be up to par) have been holding combat sessions/seminars to train up IC, and to make sure the players meet an acceptable standard OOC.

Even in times where there wasn't much prep (a sudden raid), you have the leaders howling into their skype/discord/online chats, saying that everyone needs to join, promising a raid. You have people all riled up for a cool fight. No one wants to cut the rp short.
Even if one leader has been annoyed enough to actually call it quits (funnily enough, the side that hides behind perms tends to end up just as annoyed as the side that isn't, everyone is annoyed) if the other side doesn't agree, they'll claim that they won the fight. That's a blow to whichever side 'lost'. Not only have they had hours of their time wasted, not including whatever IC or OOC prep and/or hype that went on IG or in a chat, but the other side now knows them as (sore) losers. This is one of the things that stops either side from pulling out. If it's going to be a waste of time, at least make it a waste of time you can brag about, right?

So the problem can't always be answered with "leave the rp". Sometimes, a fine line is needed to solve issues between players.

 

[Conflee]

Marked as dated because this was implemented it seems with new Captivity Rules.