The Freya Lo Paradox

[MonMarty]

"You know as well as I that I'll rot in the ground. Feh. Or I imagine. You lot cast me out. What else was I to do? I-I only wanted. You threw me away. No one throws me away."​

Introduction
This isn't really a paradox, but I named it as such because it makes it sound smarter and catchier. This is an ideological rant about antagonism roleplay and the results there-of, as well as the difference between story telling and avatar roleplay. A while back we looked into the matter of Director-Actor-Reactor theory between roleplay ideologies. Present day, we've funneled this down to the idea that there are those who wish to roleplay in a story telling motion where they dictate a story and others react, and then there are those who wish to roleplay to act out an avatar of themselves in a different setting. Neither part is really worse or better, after all, whatever way people choose to roleplay is ultimately up to them, but there are corner cases where collisions between the two cause severe friction to the point where roleplay itself becomes toxic.

An Example
One such example is antagonism. Some people enjoy being "evil" or simply messing with other characters by creating conflict for the sake of creating conflict. Usually they have an IC reason, but sometimes it is simply OOC motivated for the sake of creating roleplay drama so /anything/ happens and people can be entertained. This often conflicts with those who roleplay as their avatar, as it forces bad things onto their character. No matter how much people claim to not be subject to this, it still happens so frequently that conflict arises between these two ideologies where those who wish to do storytelling have their plans smothered early on by a wall of conservative roleplay.

The crux of Freya Lo
The essential core of the Freya Lo Paradox has to do with the impossibility of repetition. Freya Lo is often heralded as one of the most amazing antagonist characters this server ever knew in roleplay, expertly portrayed by Shuikenai. Even to this day, events surrounding said character's plots and plans are still being paraded around in forms of nostalgia and fond memories. Yet whenever Shuikenai tries to re-create that same situation by having a gradual descent into chaos and antagonism, his plans get smothered early on by a sabotaging barricade of reactionary sentiment. "I don't want to lose X!" "I don't want Y to happen to me!" "Your character is evil because Z!"

The Paradox is thus presented as followed:

• A new relatively unknown player has the ability to create a well growing antagonist character that slowly reveals themselves like the antagonist of a good movie.
• Once said character has gone or passed over, said person can /never/ re-create or re-experience that situation for themselves or for others.
• Whenever said person tries, the reactionary elements around them immediately assume they are going to become an antagonist and meta game around them or form massive OOC and IC coalitions to prevent them from doing anything that would result in conflict.

So to summarize it:

• Once you have played an antagonist character, you can never re-experience or re-create the same situation, thus making storytelling from an antagonist point of view impossible and unrewarding. From the very first moment, these people face opposition and a constant uphill battle that is unrewarding.

Suggestions?
I started this thread with the intention of creating a public dialogue about this issue. Whenever a player (from a player's stand point of view) tries to be an antagonist to start a story-line, they often get beaten down to the point where they cannot propel roleplay forward or advance the story. If said player then gets granted staff privileges or as a staff member inserts them self into a high position where the lore gives them the means to be an antagonist, they get accused of being corrupt and self serving. In order for roleplay to remain entertaining and fresh, antagonists are needed. Any movie or show with only protagonists grinds down because there is no opposition to anything and romance roleplay and friendly collegiate drinking in the tavern can only be fun for a couple of days.

My idea has always been to simply grant special staff privileges to those wishing to be antagonists. Give them an instantly powerful family with the means to get on everyone's nerves and make them scared for their own well-being. But this always results in negative toxic attitudes that it's corrupt and self serving and somehow unfair to the people who worked their way up to having the same means. Yet when the person who wants to be that antagonist tries to go the same route of working up to that point, those same people beat down on them and prevent them from actually climbing up thus preventing roleplay from taking any meaningful path of progression.

 

[LekkuLord]

This might not be very beneficial or wise for this discussion but I personally think that people should really stop caring so much about their in game titles and positions of power. Tristan has fallen quite a few times, mostly because of his own stupidity, however. That's what I love the most. I love that my character has screwed up over and over. In my opinion, he's lost and gained more than most people in Regalia. And I /always/ come back for more.

I love roleplay. I love drama. I love antagonists. I love being an antagonist sometimes. Though, I wouldn't necessarily label Tristan as one... I would just label him as a very rude person, I suppose. Or an anti-hero, actually.

My point being is... Drama is a fantastic source for roleplay. Character development will rarely ever be found in pleasantry roleplay. Let the person who enjoys being the antagonist be the antagonist... Don't shoot them down early. We need them for the sake of interesting roleplay.

Also. Freya is hot. @Shuikenai

 

[Shuikenai]

...

This might not be very beneficial or wise for this discussion but I personally think that people should really stop caring so much about their in game titles and positions of power. Tristan has fallen quite a few times, mostly because of his own stupidity, however. That's what I love the most. I love that my character has screwed up over and over. In my opinion, he's lost and gained more than most people in Regalia. And I /always/ come back for more.

I love roleplay. I love drama. I love antagonists. I love being an antagonist sometimes. Though, I wouldn't necessarily label Tristan as one... I would just label him as a very rude person, I suppose. Or an anti-hero, actually.

My point being is... Drama is a fantastic source for roleplay. Character development will rarely ever be found in pleasantry roleplay. Let the person who enjoys being the antagonist be the antagonist... Don't shoot them down early. We need them for the sake of interesting roleplay.

Also. Freya is hot. @Shuikenai

Click to shrink...

...

 

[LekkuLord]

...

...

Click to shrink...

love me

 

[DrFong]

Hmm an interesting dilemma. I have had dreams of running a (more) evil/diabolical character, but have never pursued it for precisely the reasons you mention. I don't want to be known for being that "evil" guy ooc and blowing all the goodwill I have built up.

It shouldn't work that way, but it seems to every time.

It seems like a metagaming problem at it's core. People are working hard ooc to protect their characters ic. Not sure how to get around that.

Is there any way to have some fresh minecraft account that could be used by villians and sort of come out of nowhere with an unknown name and face? That would remove the backlash and maybe make villians a little more free to do their thing.

It's a tricky problem for sure.

 

[Manatee_]

freya is HOT

 

[Mooffins]

In my eyes, this is neither the product of meta-gaming or corruption. It is the person playing the instigator. It seems, from my point of view, that people attempt to recreate something they once had, but they do it TOO much. If you already had a character that was a known instigator and held in negative light, then try to decieve people OOC and IC to believing they are just the opposite. A prime example I would like to point out is Andrieu Anahera. Most, remember I say most and not all, characters believed IC and OOC that he was okay, or just not suited for the Arch-Chancellory. The morning where I woke up and saw he took over the government, blew me away OOC. I did not expect the man, who was beyond nice to Percy and supportive, to do something so evil. On the other hand, people try to recreate Freya Los and end up getting OOC and IC hate. Why? These characters approach others, and immediately hop into their previous character's ways; typically this involves them being quite mean to others IC. All that does is make other characters immediately dislike your new one, and then those other people get called for meta-gaming. Creativity should be placed over past characters and roleplay skill. The moment when creativity with schemey characters ends, is when this begins. People who want those antagonists back in Aloria need to find creative ways to fool those around them, or play off their ill-hearted tendences with other things. I hope this rant made some sense.

 

[Silent_Ruler]

I'm honestly not too sure on what to believe,
so I'm tagging my faithful fellow roleplayer friend to take a look into this: @Kiba Araqnuibo.

I think that it's true what @iMcMuffins said, but to an extent. I feel it's actually both. Seeing a single player going around trying to regain their previous character's "glory" and status of fear in Regalia makes people shy away from roleplay like this because it's "typical" of others. This can be seen in the case of Gustavo and Andrieu Anahera- both characters starting off as a stable mixture with the potential to influence the progression of others. Eventually, character development arouses the "evil ingredients" inside the characters, and they crack. In reality, I don't think this to be in any way typical of for example @Shayin ((Gustavo and Andrieu Anahera)). I think that it's necessary, actually, because it is true that "happy roleplay" becomes bland, at least to me. It's just a matter of antagonism being played realistically, and not for the sake of causing trouble.

Yet, the point still stands: I have encountered serious hindrance in my attempts to portray an antagonist due to other's previous experiences with my past characters that blurred the lines between villain and antihero even if not quite antagonists. I feel that they might fear their characters being subject to harm should they interact with characters who others know to be an antagonist on an out of character level, and thus avoid interaction. Thus, this shuts down or at least complicates any progression the antagonist might experience. I think that people do not realize that both sides may earn great character development as they pick themselves up from what an antagonist might do to them.

Then, there is the problem of "good and bad" character development. I think we may all agree that everyone tries to seek development for their characters. I also think that it is true that we grow attached to them, as I have grown attached to characters I've lost without being prepared to lose them. It would then be natural for other's to protect their own creations, no? Here is when it comes in, this problem: I think that it's happened that people only focus on their characters receiving the character development they handpick, to maybe progress their character to a desired outcome. I'm not quite sure on how to finish this thought, but I think people should be more open to allowing their characters to be influenced negatively. Because, it is what doesn't kill them that makes them stronger individuals, right?

I believe that it is the diversity of their experiences that make other characters really "dig" your character. I think it's like, for example, a runaway slave encountering someone who was born with freedom. They've had it easy, or so they think, and thus can be rendered as weaker and maybe not as engaging. Still, know-it-all characters are, I think, too bland too, as they don't struggle at all. I know that if everything played out as I wanted it to play out, I'd lose interest in roleplay to an extent. Some of the times, if not most, I've played an antagonist even if at a minor level is because they eventually become them. I never, in their case, intended for them to be "evil", but rather they got so hurt and scarred over time, they slowly became it. Not to say that my characters suddenly become assassins, but rather maybe just... fierce competitors or at least stoic.

 

[krios41]

My idea has always been to simply grant special staff privileges to those wishing to be antagonists. Give them an instantly powerful family with the means to get on everyone's nerves and make them scared for their own well-being. But this always results in negative toxic attitudes that it's corrupt and self serving and somehow unfair to the people who worked their way up to having the same means. Yet when the person who wants to be that antagonist tries to go the same route of working up to that point, those same people beat down on them and prevent them from actually climbing up thus preventing roleplay from taking any meaningful path of progression.

Click to shrink...

I think it's a tricky thing.
I agree that it would be a little unfair to give those who wish to be an antagonist an instantly powerfull family while others have to work for it.
But i also agree with your arguments, it's a tricky thing. I think a good (or at least a) middleground would be to make it for those easier, but not to easy like BAM power to do evil stoof. What i think is more of a problem is the inbalance of people who want to be evil, and people who want to be good. Like with Andrieu Anahera, who suported him? 2 family's and that was it so far as i know.
But just 2? on how mant Noble and commoner family's are out there? I peronaly think that if there would be more people that want to be evil, people wouldn't rust so much into their characters as they do now because change would be 'forced' upon them more frequently. (now that's more of a paradox )

 

[MrHappyTinkles]

A lot of you people are expanding on the problem and forming your own logic around why or why not this is a problem.

Where are the solutions? Where's the reasoning for these solutions?

 

[krios41]

I peronaly think that if there would be more people that want to be evil, people wouldn't rust so much into their characters as they do now because change would be 'forced' upon them more frequently.

Click to shrink...

there, that's what i beleve could be a solution Tinkels
no clue o how to achieve said solution tough

 

[MrHappyTinkles]

no clue o how to achieve said solution tough

Click to shrink...

This is the problem.

 

[Medvekoma]

The issue is recognised, a solution is required now.

For that, I think the massive RP scene should jump away from the romanticist ideals of the 'knight in shining armour' penned against the 'dark and wicked wizard in black'. The problem I see right now, derives from the roleplay situation. In a game of D&D, there's a group of 'good' adventurers usually with a game master providing enemies and adventures for them. In the usual massive RP, there's a group of characters much alike, but the game masters are the lore staff who cannot really deal with every group of players individually, and cannot provide adventure and enemies for them. Lacking such, it's up to the players to create enemies and they have to rely on those playing antagonists.

Which leads to the root of the problem I think, which is the self-glorification of characters as 'white knights'. I know, playing a prick or playing a naughty character /can/ be fun but unappealing to a lot of roleplayers. Yet a problem I see is that people tend to consider 'good' and 'bad' sides in RP and usually side with the 'good' to have 'good' characters. This is also strengthened by the fact that people tend to 'band together' when they become friends OOC and form IC friendships. Which /is/ nice in terms of fun and OOC interaction, but could possibly damage the RP scene when too many people band together like that and await antagonists to be lined up against them.

If the RP scene would be able to scrap this whole idea, it'd be much more interesting. Instead of banding together, characters could still have meaningful and developing roleplay if all of them were in the somewhat-protagonist zone, yet opposing each other instead of waiting for NPCs to attack them. It works in sewer RP, where the default is the 'bad' side and there are many 'bad' groups opposed to each other, being able to have gang RP without an external 'good' to involve itself in their matters.

So, for TL/DR, scrap this whole idea of protagonist and antagonist, as well as the idea of 'friendship & love between PC characters, because that's good' and instead promote opposition and competition to self-generate RP situations and drama.

 

[FireFan96]

I think it kinda sucks that once an IGN makes an antagonist, they are immediately labeled as the "creator of so and so" and are then forced to never bring another antaginist to life.
Andrieu Anahera was a good example of an antagonist. Most people didn't really have a solid view IC one way or another. In my own experience with Andrieu, I didn't like the guy OOC at all. But in IC, I played someone who was oblivious of the situation....at least until a certain cathedral started going up in flames around him.

After the fact, I don't want to see another Andrieu rise to power, and most people probably agree with me. But eventually evil will seep back into play. I'm assuming the Diet is creating a way to prevent another Andrieu from happening, by changing the laws and whatnot. However, eventually someone will find a new loophole and exploit it to get to the top. However, it will be a different way than how Andrieu got there.

Basically, I can fully understand if people shun an antagonist OOC and IC if they're literally a copy of an old one. Andrieu's method has been used up. No one IC will be able to do the exact same method with the same result. Regalia will be able to see that that new antagonist is behaving very similar to Andrieu, and will probably react very quickly to overthrow them. However, if someone becomes an antagonist by some other means (like slowly and secretly building up weaponry in the sewers for a revolution) then no one should be able to stop then OOC or IC (unless said antagonist is very easily read and isn't careful) But nonetheless, this method for becoming evil is not the same (and as far as I know not conceived yet) as how Andrieu became evil.

Ok, so that's my reasoning how I'd react OOC and IC for an IC person. Now for OOC views on players OOC, I should just treat them as I've been treating them. I don't view Shayin as the person who made Andrieu Anahera or as the "bad guy RPer." I just view him as a fellow player and nothing more. If he ended up playing a new character who would eventually become evil, I wouldn't care. Only thing that changes is he's playing another antagonist. IC I know nothing new, so I have no way to change my character's behavior in any way. OOC I know, but I cannot share that information.

To prevent myself from metagaming, I try to imagine a barrier between me and my character. This is both literal and metaphorical. I literally see my character via a screen, but I can't move my hand into the game. I'm "stuck behind the screen." Therefore, I have no way to tell my character anything I read here on the forums.

Spoiler: Summary

 

[krios41]

I'm just going to point at Medvekoma because his explenation is good and better then i can think off because i'm bad at finding solutions.

 

[DrFong]

I believe I proposed a solution. A handful of throw-away accounts in rotation would allow for more freedom and block meta-gaming. I believe a big part of the problem is players spotting the "trouble-maker" accounts ooc and cutting them off at the knees before anything interesting can happen.

 

[Shuikenai]

I believe I proposed a solution. A handful of throw-away accounts in rotation would allow for more freedom and block meta-gaming. I believe a big part of the problem is players spotting the "trouble-maker" accounts ooc and cutting them off at the knees before anything interesting can happen.

Click to shrink...

I think that's, I dunno. Too excessive as far as a solution goes? We shouldn't have to go so ridiculous as to make new accounts just so people are blindsided.

 

[HydraLana]

Well, Lana Asska I feel is going to be a great villain someday. Just not instantly and right now. It will be a slow sear and rise, like a sneaky spooky Slizzar should be. As for the moment, a lot of what's being said is true and might I add just one more point, that both of these situations were flashes in the pan. The first time, it was because Freya was insane and made a crazy decision to invade Regalia. Yet the instant Adrieu started to rise, I honestly said "End of December, he's out." because the villain situations in Regalia are slow. Sure, with Estel and her army, it was hinted at a VERY long time back when Baver died that there was something out there in the Expanse. But then, she came down and well, vanished rather quickly considering. I feel we need a hidden villain. Someone who pulls the strings from the darkness and manipulates it all. Idk, I'm blathering now but that's just part of how I feel.

 

[Shayin]

If he ended up playing a new character who would eventually become evil, I wouldn't care.

Click to shrink...

oh baby have I got something cooking up

 

[Shuikenai]

oh baby have I got something cooking up

Click to shrink...

Deets.

 

[DrFong]

I think that's, I dunno. Too excessive as far as a solution goes? We shouldn't have to go so ridiculous as to make new accounts just so people are blindsided.

Click to shrink...

Still listening for a solution.

 

[KrakenLord01]

oh baby have I got something cooking up

Click to shrink...

Not trying to discourage or anything, but isn't it a bit early to already be making another antagonist after just going through a major conflict with your last one?

 

[LekkuLord]

I gave my personal solution. Even if it is simple and somewhat asinine.

Stop giving a crap and let the antagonists do their thing so long as they know player deaths aren't exactly necessary. It's roleplay, in the end, people should stop getting their OOC feelings hurt over it.

However, that's a very blunt and close minded solution, I'll admit. That's just how I think, though. My apologies if it's awful.

 

[DrFong]

I may follow my own plan and buy another "evil" account. You will never see me coming! Live in fear!

 

[KrakenLord01]

I may follow my own plan and buy another "evil" account. You will never see me coming!

Click to shrink...

Make Dr. Fong evil, have him go crazy or something.

 

[Suzzie]

Not trying to discourage or anything, but isn't it a bit early to already be making another antagonist after just going through a major conflict with your last one?

Click to shrink...

Well. Not many people step up to the plate to do so, or at least that's what I feel I've seen.

My idea has always been to simply grant special staff privileges to those wishing to be antagonists. Give them an instantly powerful family with the means to get on everyone's nerves and make them scared for their own well-being. But this always results in negative toxic attitudes that it's corrupt and self serving and somehow unfair to the people who worked their way up to having the same means. Yet when the person who wants to be that antagonist tries to go the same route of working up to that point, those same people beat down on them and prevent them from actually climbing up thus preventing roleplay from taking any meaningful path of progression.

Click to shrink...

I think this is a fair idea and solution. Yes, some view it as unfair, but look at it this way. When you play an extreme antagonist, you will inevitably fall somewhere down the line, and typically earlier than most. Some characters on this server have lasted several years. Most antagonists don't get that, and while it makes sense for them to die, it's not always fun if you've grown to love a character.

In a way, I suppose it's a boost and compensation. That's just my two cents.

 

[Shayin]

oh baby have I got something cooking up

Click to shrink...

No but as for an actual reply, my biggest problem playing Andrieu was that he had good intentions. He had valid reasoning for what he was going to do, and knew exactly how far he wanted to go. The main problem was that the entire playerbase instantly saw him as an evil dictator based off of their OOC knowledge of figures such as Mussolini, Hitler, and the Russian Triumvirate, and later Stalin. The fact of the matter is that most Alorians more than likely would not be capable of recognizing what a dictator was. The word might not even exist because they have never experienced what a dictatorship is, nor do they have a historical background to see what a dictatorship is like. Andrieu's plan was to remove something he saw as corrupt, decentralize the Empire by giving more rights to the nobility, making common life easier, and repairing the schisms. Those 4 main goals are what founded his actions.

In terms of OOC, I wanted to create issues that would force morally good characters to split up and argue with themselves. To a degree I did do this, but it did not involve the playerbase as much as I would have liked. The OOC perceptions of the events skewed how characters reacted IC, and by the time of the Ulric Typhonus trial, I realized I couldn't get a good division. Everyone was so afraid of losing titles, or being executed, or losing their character, that they just sided with the "good" guys to avoid bad stuff. About the only person I know who followed Andrieu into the fire (lol_ was Atilio Amaya. Props to @Greenie for making ballsy moves every step of the way.

At that point I basically fed off of the OOC player interactions, and my observations of the unintentional metagame, by introducing far left concepts as well as having Andrieu do purely evil things, if only to feed the fire (Sorry @Doc_Cantank and @Sir_Kazmo) and make the playerbase enjoy taking him down even more. Towards the end I wasn't Roleplaying as Andrieu for fun, I just roleplayed him as a pleasure-hound for the vast majority to enjoy getting pissed at, so the end of the year post would be more satisfying for all involved. Which I'm not dissatisfied with. I'm glad I could bring so many people much joy, but it is upsetting to have a character who was not inherently evil to be forced into that position just to please others, and be labelled so.

Regardless, my experience in Andrieu's rise to power reaffirmed my original concepts in the following way:
Antagonists should never exist. Protagonists should never exist. Evil characters should never exist. Good characters should never exist. Every character needs to have a personal conviction, or a goal they want. Moral perspective should never be a measure of what character is friends with who, or who wins what. My solution is to form friendships based on IC ideals and goals, which is why I eagerly anticipate the January Honneurs System Update. Available now, on the Massivecraft Wiki, free of any and all charge. Read more at the official link below for more details.

https://wiki.massivecraft.com/Honneurs

 

[Beetletoes]

Make Dr. Fong evil, have him go crazy or something.

Click to shrink...

Nalani will serve loyally. Up with Fong!

 

[Ryciera]

I think a lot of the OOC negativity that comes from having an antagonist comes from a lack of trust. I can't provide a solution, but the recommendations I can provide for individual roleplayers, all of us, are to focus on the following:

• Be more trusting of other roleplayers and always make sure your boundaries are clear.
• Be more willing to take risks (in a lot of cases, if power is being abused OOC someone will call it out).
• Be more trustworthy. Mitigate metagaming and don't abuse power you've been given over another character.
• Always make sure you're clear on other people's boundaries.

Of course, I understand why this is easier said than done, and I'm admittedly not the most trusting of people myself. Despite that, I do think they're good rules of thumbs that can at least aid in finding a solution.

 

[Elven_Queen]

anaheras = scary brown shady people that want to hurt my pretty char ;'c

- eVERYONE

 

[Beetletoes]

anaheras = scary brown shady people that want to hurt my pretty char ;'c

- eVERYONE

Click to shrink...

Except us fine sewer freaks.

 

[Doc_Cantankerous]

Stop giving a crap and let the antagonists do their thing so long as they know player deaths aren't exactly necessary. It's roleplay, in the end, people should stop getting their OOC feelings hurt over it.

Click to shrink...

I'd like to start by saying that me and @Sir_Kazmo both agreed to have our characters kill, as it was naturally progressing of our characters. I'm also fairly certain that out of all the player characters involved in the whole Andrieu debacle, we were the only two to have public executions put on by Andrieu. This was because we asked Shayin to; and had to convince him that it is what we wanted. He was against us killing Basium and Vincent from the get go. So if you get one point "I CHOSE TO KILL BASIUM, HE WAS NOT TAKEN FROM ME, AND I REALIZED THAT IT HELPED TO CAUSE MORE ROLEPLAY FOR OTHERS."

Death is a natural part, and though we grow attached to our beloved characters, we need to learn to let them go every once in a while. I had a D&D campaign once where a guy had his character killed, three weeks in a row. Didn't mean he didn't care for his characters, it just was how events were handed to him.

No but as for an actual reply, my biggest problem playing Andrieu was that he had good intentions.

Click to shrink...

As for this, I absolutely loved what Andrieu did in office. The only, only reason I had Basium step in, was because there was a drastic change in the church and caused a schism. Otherwise, Basium would most likely have supported the systems being put in place, even though his brother would not have agreed with him. And in arguments between Andrieu and Basium, we never once mentioned what he was doing, only the fact that he had taken power away from the emperor. There was times that I even argued OOC with others to realize that Andrieu wasn't doing anything all that wrong when it came to the day to day running of the empire. And besides, a little peasant in the backwater town of Wherever-The-Void would not have cared at all about who lead the Empire, only that their lands were being destroyed by rioters.

And above all else, I am sorry for @Shayin , because he put in all that work, and most people just viewed him as evil. Thank you, for creating a memorable character and realizing that by killing him, you allowed others have fun. I truly weep more for Andrieu than I do Basium.


Now with that off my chest, I have to agree with Shayin's idea. We have too many people who are worried about losing their characters who are in positions of power in the Empire, making the entire easiest pot from which a 'conflict' can occur one of the calmest. And it often comes down to just two sides, those who feel they worked hard for their positions, and should not lose them, and those who see a bit of ripples as beneficial to the empire.

Perhaps what we should do is make it easier for non-nobility (which is about 90% of the server) to be able to have more of an impact. What if we made it so that criminal organizations could develop, like a (somehow) shadier version of Fong Co., or perhaps created more religious tension by having priests of the Old Gods starting to cause feelings of discontent amongst people. Unionism is the biggest 'lore' religion, but more often than not, (and I am one of the priests of Union) it is Estel that I hear about. We have such a huge Elven population, and yet they have little to no power to start anything. Or even more so, start a damn cult that manages to entrap a vice demon? Or what if the Vices/Virtues began power grabs? Maybe open up the various slots to more, because if my memory (which is often wrong) serves, we have two Virtues, and about four Vices being played. Maybe work to bring these "... independent beings with immense power that help their creator manifest in the Alorian Dimension." (Vices and Virtues p.1) into more of a conflict? We have so many people and bits of lore to portray them, and yet we leave the keys to conflict with a select few who more often than not simply squabble among themselves (And I've witnessed it first hand), perhaps we should begin looking at more windows of opportunity that would create unique stories to weave into the fabric of Regalia. And I suppose all else, I'd enjoy seeing some of the stories that were started come to an end (CoughCoughFogDemonsCough).

TLR We have a lot of roads that are less traveled, perhaps we need to examine these to allow more players to progress the story.

 

[Shayin]

And I suppose all else, I'd enjoy seeing some of the stories that were started come to an end (CoughCoughFogDemonsCough).

Click to shrink...

spring 2k16

 

[Woodwork]

A lot of the time in my opinion, instigators are played to aggressively and without any consideration. They don't think about the entertainment for everyone or rather they don't find a middle ground for boundaries. They come in to regalia, give everyone rubbish and whatnot. No tact, no build up, very little deceit. Next to no room for any build up or actual twists or anything actually worth playing through. Andrieu was wonderful because he came accross a good guy, then he makes people drink acid. Didn't see that coming.

 

[Enkiduu]

Antagonists should never exist. Protagonists should never exist. Evil characters should never exist. Good characters should never exist.

Click to shrink...

Maybe the problem is that RP is too Regalia centered where the only options are either with or against the empire, Us-or-Them mentality. One solution could be to expand to other parts of the world to include other groups and factions (not Minecraft factions, factions as the word's originally definition) . To prevent spreading roleplayers out too sparsely, there could be a rotation system where every season, every few weeks, or everytime there's a progression happening in another part of the world, the roleplay shifts focus to this part of the world in a similar way the tavern closed to focus RP on the festival.

 

[Medvekoma]

Maybe the problem is that RP is too Regalia centered where the only options are either with or against the empire, Us-or-Them mentality. One solution could be to expand to other parts of the world to include other groups and factions (not Minecraft factions, factions as the word's originally definition) . To prevent spreading roleplayers out too sparsely, there could be a rotation system where every season, every few weeks, or everytime there's a progression happening in another part of the world, the roleplay shifts focus to this part of the world in a similar way the tavern closed to focus RP on the festival.

Click to shrink...

Technically, you don't even have to do that if there's a diverse enough community within the RP. I completely agree with Shayin on that matter, as I have elaborated in my own rant, and I do suggest a solution that places all characters as a 'natural being' instead of a 'protagonist' or 'antagonist'. No matter how you look at history, even those who are currently accepted as de-facto 'antagonists' of human history were actually protagonists to many people, and most protagonists met opposition as well. Rarely will you find a prominent figure who only wanted to do 'good to everyone' or 'evil to the world'. But it's completely understandable that as escape from a wicked life one would prefer roleplaying romantic ideals of good and bad.

It's just that if you stick to a romanticised good, you'll have to give way for bad to appear and challenge your characters, and you have to accept that the community cannot always procure evil for you to fight, and thus you may end up bored or without ambitions for your characters. 'Stuck' in the sense that there isn't much for them to do because most of their actions are reactions to evil that threaten the Empire.

 

[JarlJade]

A lot of the time in my opinion, instigators are played to aggressively and without any consideration. They don't think about the entertainment for everyone or rather they don't find a middle ground for boundaries. They come in to regalia, give everyone rubbish and whatnot. No tact, no build up, very little deceit. Next to no room for any build up or actual twists or anything actually worth playing through. Andrieu was wonderful because he came accross a good guy, then he makes people drink acid. Didn't see that coming.

Click to shrink...

I think this kinda connects back to the main point. There is often little chance for building up a role play scene for people playing repeating antagonists because everyone already assumes that a character is going to be evil because it is play by @knownantagonist. It's this very mentality that "Most antagonists are aggressive and have no tact" that makes them hard for people to play. Freya Lo, Alejandro Anahera and Andrieu Anahera were all antagonists that managed to rise to power using deceit and so on because the people playing them had no track record of playing evil characters beforehand so IC characters and people OOC had a lot less reason to believe they were evil and therefore were shocked when things turned around. I don't think it's a matter of most antagonists are aggressive it's just, most people trying to play antagonists are viewed as aggressive because of a certain person playing them.

As for a solution I agree with @SupremeCripple. I think the only way antagonist roles play can continue is if people allow things to happen to their characters. People need to accept loss and gain, not just gain. The problem is if no one loses anything then they become complacent and they end up not wanting to give up their power. Losing power is a good incentive for rp to either get your power back or enact revenge. If you keep on gaining and gaining or not losing anything then you soon run out of purpose and ambition which is important if you want to play a character that focuses on things other than pleasantry rp. At the end of the day though if you're content with pleasantry rp and nothing else it still shouldn't get in the way of those who want to rise to power and those who are willing to actually contribute to the server progression as a whole rather than their own personal rp experience.

 

[Johto_Jo]

Huh. I've always taken the avatar roleplaying route and I've never really ever been offended or had my feelings hurt ooc. I mean, it's probably because I'm a bit strange and enjoy situations where my characters struggle or are harmed, but... I don't know where I was going with this. Oh! Right:

I miss Freya. Dear, sweet Freya. ;~;
@Shuikenai

 

[babaMP3]

Random point of consideration. I won't go into any sort of in-depth analysis or long prattle (u thought), namely because it's late and I don't particularly have any interests in sharing opinions I already made apparent to Mon.

Anywhosits. Alot of people are definitely praising Andrieu Anahera and absolutely loved what happened with him -- and certainly for good reason. Lots of roleplay was generated. Scenarios that never would have existed in any vague consideration or prediction were suddenly thrown onto an entire variety of characters, noble or otherwise, and everyone certainly agrees it was a whole lotta fun. I can certainly say for myself that the roleplay that took place prior to Andrieu's rise was definitely a highlight of my entire time on Massive, rivaling my fun times as Alejandro and Celine. However, I do have a sort of open question:

It's been a sort of given that a lot -- and I do mean a lot of people on the server played with the automatic assumption that Andrieu Anahera was going to fall anyways. Something would happen one way or another that'd lead to his demise and the fall of the entire regime constructed. Before I even ask the actual question, I'm in no way questioning anyone's legitimacy in their statements or their accounts they present of their roleplay and the fun behind it, nor am I pointing fingers and devaluing people's opinions expressed thus far. Since it was a given that Andrieu would fall (namely due to casual discussion of the entire thing -- though I wouldn't call it metagaming) and all would return to relative normality with no sort of recognizable or otherwise tangible scar, is that what made it fun? That isn't to say the situation or scenario itself wasn't fun, but given there weren't any immediately obvious tragic effects that could befall one's character during the time, is it not easy to conclude (given @SupremeCripple 's analysis and proposed solution and the consequent implications of it) that because there was an overarching blanket of security and insurance, one could be assured of their character's complete and utter safety despite the wanton collapse and destruction around them, and the easy outlets for change and evolution of a character beyond the normal comforts of prior normality?

Of course, there were many effects following the entire story progression. Titles in nobility were shuffled a bit, rivalries were struck, and so on, but as far as what I can consider, some characters had no lasting change happen onto them for the sake of not letting anything lasting happen to them. I'd question the purpose of such large events, in that case, or even players who want to stir the pot. I know I can personally say that I never barged into the likes of nobility wanting heads on spikes and families in ruin -- I've never actively sought for that sort of extreme, nor will I, even despite what makes sense for my characters. When I roleplay in nobility, or as any character, I do so for the sake of providing entertainment and to help create a story for everyone else's benefit, including my own. However, the description of the Freya Lo Paradox outlines the problem I suffer with a few others: The possibility of having a dynamic plotline that grows and evolves along with characters is stalled at the face of people who may be too overprotective of their characters or their current situation.

Perhaps I should cover my last bases again. No, I am not pointing fingers. No, I am not speaking ill of any specific people. No, I'm not doing this to flex my own agenda for my own selfish run at fun. I want to have as much fun as anyone else on the server, and I truly believe that we all could be maximizing our roleplay experience if we simply let ourselves do so.

 

[Doc_Cantankerous]

face of people who may be too overprotective of their characters or their current situation.

Click to shrink...

is if people allow things to happen to their characters.

Click to shrink...

I do suggest a solution that places all characters as a 'natural being' instead of a 'protagonist' or 'antagonist'.

Click to shrink...

recommendations I can provide for individual roleplayers

Click to shrink...

'band together' when they become friends OOC and form IC friendships. Which /is/ nice in terms of fun and OOC interaction, but could possibly damage the RP scene when too many people band together like that and await antagonists to be lined up against them.

Click to shrink...

everyone tries to seek development for their characters.

Click to shrink...

On the other hand, people try to recreate Freya Los and end up getting OOC and IC hate.

Click to shrink...

It seems like a metagaming problem at it's core. People are working hard ooc to protect their characters ic. Not sure how to get around that.

Click to shrink...

To be quite honest, I think that perhaps Cripple has the best solution. We've all basically discussed how people protect their characters, because they don't wish to see something they've invested so much time in destroyed.

I don't think it's the system that is broken, but the people who engage in it. The system itself is fine, and creates unique roleplay for different individuals, but when you add in people, it goes to the wayside. And I fear that it would be the same with real system we can put in place.

As long as people are at risk of losing their stuff, they will continue to be the 'protagonist'. (though in reality, every antagonist is the protagonist of their own story). The error in the system comes down to the fact that people hate seeing what they've made destroyed. "Why should my character have to die, I worked hard to become Lord So-and-so of East Wherever, I shouldn't have to worry about my character dying." And until we can figure out how to coerce people out of this mindset, It will continue.

For example, we made a registry of noble houses, and were permitted to label kill perms for members of families. A was for nothing at all, B was maimed/injured, and C was death perms. There was three C's (at the time), a splattering of B's, and about 85% A's. No one wanted their young star to be taken from them, and thus everyone was basically immortal. The only reason the Lampero family had any A's was because I had a few inactive people, so even if they were a B/C, it wouldn't do anything. This was because, as Cripple has stated, I realized that death is a natural part of playing a character, and can often advance the story.

So where was I going with this? It's that it's the players themselves that need to take a step back and realize that death is not the end of a book, but the beginning of a new chapter. Heck, look at the Song of Ice and Fire books (and I apologize about the reference), how many characters were introduced who died out? Did it make the story any less enjoyable? Or did you feel more because a character you could relate to suddenly was gone? Roleplay is, in its most basic part, simply a play. And to quote Shakespeare;

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts..."
(As you like it, Act 2, scene 7).

TLR; The system isn't the problem, the people using it are, and they need to suck it up and actually allow their characters to suffer every once in a while.