The Freya Lo Paradox
- Thread starter MonMarty
- Start date
- Status
Medvekoma
The Mysterious One
Distribution wasn't that extreme, there was 50% A, 41% B and 9% C. I think, most B people were like me and went B because that's the middle ground, with those putting A having long-time plans for characters and those with C having all kinds of reasons.
I can't see this problem you are talking about causing all the mess. That, I stated it.
Yes, I'm going to rant. You're looking for issues to solve and argue because you find little, whereas the real issue is right in front of you.
Never the less, the problem isn't solved by solving the antagonist issue. You have to go way back to the roots to resolve it, so let's go with a string of thought to support what I proposed, and what @Shayin proposed as well.
1. There's a problem that those players who have played antagonists before are meta-considered antagonists and all their characters meet suspicion.
2. Roots of this problem is a metagamish thought behind the player, assuming that their characters are antagonists.
3. Now here' the question of why this assumption is there and how you can prevent it, /if/ you want to prevent it.
4. Explanations for why this assumption is there and how is could be prevented have been presented. There are numerous ideas for both reasons and solutions.
5. Because of this, only vague solutions can be provided if the assumption and metagaming part is addressed. Therefore, one should look for a more core problem.
6. This core problem is there being 'antagonists' and 'protagonists'. If there is none, then there is 'no player who has played an antagonist before' and players aren't looking for antagonists in new characters.
For a more comprehensible explanation, here are hypothetical situations where solution was found:
Let's presume a reason for such metagaming is identified and removed. There's no metagaming, people don't discriminate those who have played antagonists before, but what's the result? Those who present themselves as 'protagonists' have long-time characters around, while those playing 'antagonists' keep introducing new characters for the purpose of driving the story and entertaining the 'protagonists'.
If the antagonist-protagonist issue is removed, these players no longer create 'antagonist' characters, but mere 'opposition' characters, possibly resulting in far longer character life for their characters, meaning: more in-depth RP, more history, better progression and long-time rivals that spice up the RP scene.
And now, for the ranty-ranty part of it:
The main problem I see here is the protagonist attitude, as mentioned before. It's only natural that most players would prefer playing good characters, as it provides less stress and more relaxation, along with IC love, friendship, prestige and 'honour' that may feel good. I approve of that.
The problem comes when there's a large group of such characters together. In order to provide entertainment that's more than small talk and pleasantries, they need opposition. Why? Because the idealistic nature of these characters means that after defeating their enemies and attaining a firm stand, they seek nothing more or little more, and they create a 'utopia' or an ideal status quo where those who are high are those who are idealistic characters, honourable and just.
This results in the so-much repeated 'stagnation', 'dull scene' and 'lack of action'. Why? Because these characters don't have the tools and motives against each other to provoke or instigate action. And there comes the need for Antagonists.
Antagonists appear and challenge these characters. They may be a new family arriving to the city that seeks to break the idealistic status quo, or they may even be mere lines in a world progression post written by Marty, fog creatures, Qadir, rebels in Ithania. Which means that a protagonist driven plotline relies on lore staff involvement and world progression written, or at least new antagonists introduced.
Yet what do antagonists want? They seek to break the status quo, so that they can finally have a character they can play for longer than a few months, and this is an OOC motive of theirs that's perfectly reasonable. But where does this lead, however? It leads to antagonist characters being unbalanced. They often wield weapons they shouldn't be wielding, as mentioned before they may have staff support for their titles, they may be stronger characters, more intelligent characters, etc. Point is, the longer the status quo stands, the stronger the antagonists get to challenge them, and the more unpleasant it gets for the protagonists to meet their foes.
I don't state I've seen both sides, but I do declare that I've been on the protagonist's side during the days of the Barlowe family. And I felt the same in fact, I thought they received special treatment that was unfair to them. But then I realised that without this special treatment, house Barlowe would have gone down so fast nobody would have noticed them. Without Andrieu getting a lot of head-start and such, he would have never accomplished this. And so on.
Point made, this dissent on the protagonist side results in the many accusations towards antagonists and even antagonising them on an OOC level perhaps for any support they receive.
TL/DR
A protagonist driven system means:
- A constant need for stimulation from antagonist-playing people or lore staff
- A downward spiral of dissent and disagreements between protagonists and antagonists
- A one-sided RP scene where there's a side that has years old characters that defeated numerous antagonists, and another side where there are only new faces to oppose these older characters.
- A naturally unreal situation as there's /seldom/ in life where there's no competition between characters.
- The big issue, detailed on the bottom
Why is the system disfunctional by default? Let's define protagonist:
Full Definition of protagonist
a : the principal character in a literary work (as a drama or story)
b : a leading actor, character, or participant in a literary work or real event
Now the two main problems here:
a: this means they make other characters, especially antagonists considered 'bystanders' and not parts of the story.
b: They are bound to lead, as leading actors. But they cannot lead, because /where/ they lead is an idealistic state without conflict.
How to solve it?
Sit down with your character and ask them a few questions.
Ask them whom they consider an 'antagonist' and why, and ask them whom they consider a 'protagonist' and why.
Then ask them whom they /could/ consider an 'antagonist' and why, and ask them whom they /could/ consider a 'protagonist' and why.
(I challenge any of the nobles present on this thread to provide me with two noble houses that have /absolutely/ no reason to rival each other)
After that, check your characters for 'heroism' factor:
Honourable
Loyal
Kind
Family loving
Patriotic
Just
The more traits from this list your character has, the closer they are to the romanticist ideal of a 'hero'. Is that bad? Not bad in the character's sense, bad for storytelling. Because they lead to an ideal, utopistic state where action stagnates, and that's it.
Ask yourselves the question, what would happen if Hogwarts had four Hufflepuffs. Yes, that's right, they'd probably 'share the house cup' and 'make peace with each other' and 'treat each other equal', negating all house competition and transforming Hogwarts into a school of mediocrity instead of a school of radical talents and competition.
A trait list much alike the hero factor could be made for antagonists as well, naturally. But I don't really think there's /any/ problems with the antagonists that are usually around on the server, apart from the young vampire girls and such that enter the tavern to bite someone out of thin air.
In a sense, having a 'hero factor 3+' character is the same as having an 'apolitical' one. It is possible, and not unrealistic. It's good, provides good RP. But you have to rely on others to provide a lot of RP for you, and you skip a lot of RP because of a simple personality choice you made.
Yes, I made an attempt to resolve this issue IC, by creating a neutral character that is neither evil nor good, but what I faced was that it wasn't the character's traits that made them an antagonist, but it was opposition to the side of 'protagonists'.
Which leads me to the Big Issue:
As you can see, this is a downwards spiral. The more antagonists the protagonists defeat, the stronger they grow. They need stronger antaqgonists, and they defeat stronger antagonists thus and grow even more. And if they grow strong enough, they'll be able to 'monopolise' the protagonist side. Which means that in a set layer of RP on the server, a series of characters is able to force a situation where one's either 'with them or against them', meaning that a character either picks up their ways and their playstyle, or branded opposition, and because the side is so strong, being branded opposition automatically means being branded the antagonist. Which means there's no chance of altering the set of protagonists apart from joining them. And there's no chance for an 'alternative' protagonist to rise, because sooner or later they'll rival the 'old protagonists' and if they deem the new one 'opposition', then the new one will be branded an antagonist.
TL/DR 2:
The romanticist era is over. Play grey knights, not sith and jedi. If you lot play jedi, then you'll either complain that 'Marty doesn't provide you with sith to fight' or that 'Marty's sith are too powerful all of a sudden'.
Go for neutral characters. Find rivals that you previously considered protagonists, and find allies that you previously considered antagonists.
If you disagree with me and support the protagonist, then you are digging your own tunnel to boredom. The more progatonist-ish you get, the more protagonists there are the harder there is to play an antagonist and the harder it is to provide instigation and opposition to protagonists.
RANT OVER
@babayonce @Shuikenai @MonMarty
Last edited:
I wouldn't say we make protagonists, merely go against characters who are detrimental to their status as characters. The reason they are always debunked as they start, is because it makes sense for our characters to do so. We don't do it because we want to crap all over anyone, we don't do it because we are whatever you want to call a good character, we do it because the 'antagonists' or so they are labelled wish to disrupt what our characters are used to.
If you were a manager in a company, and a lower employee wandered up to you and started slandering you. Or they started slandering you behind your back, and working to have you removed from your position. Would you just sit there and let that happen?
No. You wouldn't. That is the crucial point that needs to be understood. As @Shayin said, there shouldn't be protagonists, or antagonists. There shouldn't be good or bad people. And there aren't. There are not good or bad people, or people who are antagonists or opposite. There are simply characters. There are people at their computers who enjoy roleplay, who use this as a release from their lives. We're all here for a reason, and we are here to have fun. It should not get to the point where logging on and dealing with roleplay becomes a job, and something you don't want to do. It shouldn't get to the point where you view IRL work or School as a relief from a game where you play pretend. No one wants to log on and get dumped on OOC for their characters doing something cruel to them, or vice versa. We are all here to enjoy ourselves and advance our characters. I know I'm not alone when I say I want a character to be realistic, and have friends and actually work to stop a force who wants to disrupt everything they've have worked for or love.
At no point should this turn into a "Your character is this and it's upsetting me OOC because I can't get my way.". Instead, everyone from an OOC perspective needs to understand and realise that there are no Evil or Good characters, there are simply people with desires. Desires which lead them to make choices, choices they shouldn't be dumped on OOC because it didn't make someone elses character get their way.
Edit:
I'd like to point out I'm not slandering the other side when I say this.
As a counter, I will say: As an opposite to characters who want to prevent others from disrupting the status quo for their own personal desires, there should always be characters who challenge them. It's definitely a fun experience, and that's the point. Our 'antagonists' and 'protagonists' are all great characters, with great choices, ideas and the like. We all strive for something, that's the point. These 'negative' characters provide interesting material to play off of, and that's great. I applaud anyone who wants to play a character who challenges the majority, I really do.
However, as an aside to this, you shouldn't get angry OOC because your character was prevented from doing something IC. That's how it works, that's realistic. You're working against the majority, that isn't easy. That drops you down and makes it difficult for you to challenge people, but you still manage it. All 'negative characters' that have been made have made /an/ impact. It's always made an impact. But no one should get upset out of character because you were challenged. Just as you challenge others, they will challenge you. That is what is called character development.
If you were a manager in a company, and a lower employee wandered up to you and started slandering you. Or they started slandering you behind your back, and working to have you removed from your position. Would you just sit there and let that happen?
No. You wouldn't. That is the crucial point that needs to be understood. As @Shayin said, there shouldn't be protagonists, or antagonists. There shouldn't be good or bad people. And there aren't. There are not good or bad people, or people who are antagonists or opposite. There are simply characters. There are people at their computers who enjoy roleplay, who use this as a release from their lives. We're all here for a reason, and we are here to have fun. It should not get to the point where logging on and dealing with roleplay becomes a job, and something you don't want to do. It shouldn't get to the point where you view IRL work or School as a relief from a game where you play pretend. No one wants to log on and get dumped on OOC for their characters doing something cruel to them, or vice versa. We are all here to enjoy ourselves and advance our characters. I know I'm not alone when I say I want a character to be realistic, and have friends and actually work to stop a force who wants to disrupt everything they've have worked for or love.
At no point should this turn into a "Your character is this and it's upsetting me OOC because I can't get my way.". Instead, everyone from an OOC perspective needs to understand and realise that there are no Evil or Good characters, there are simply people with desires. Desires which lead them to make choices, choices they shouldn't be dumped on OOC because it didn't make someone elses character get their way.
Edit:
I'd like to point out I'm not slandering the other side when I say this.
As a counter, I will say: As an opposite to characters who want to prevent others from disrupting the status quo for their own personal desires, there should always be characters who challenge them. It's definitely a fun experience, and that's the point. Our 'antagonists' and 'protagonists' are all great characters, with great choices, ideas and the like. We all strive for something, that's the point. These 'negative' characters provide interesting material to play off of, and that's great. I applaud anyone who wants to play a character who challenges the majority, I really do.
However, as an aside to this, you shouldn't get angry OOC because your character was prevented from doing something IC. That's how it works, that's realistic. You're working against the majority, that isn't easy. That drops you down and makes it difficult for you to challenge people, but you still manage it. All 'negative characters' that have been made have made /an/ impact. It's always made an impact. But no one should get upset out of character because you were challenged. Just as you challenge others, they will challenge you. That is what is called character development.
Last edited:
Suzzie
elf appreciator
To add onto this. No one should ever have to stress over changing the way they play their character for others. It's your own character that you play for enjoyment.
Doc_Cantankerous
Second Foundationer
By this, I meant that there isn't really a Good Side/Bad Side. It's all just people who are doing what they feel is right. Every action we take as individuals will be seen by others as either a good action (Yaaaaa!) or a bad action (Boooo!). It's agreeing with you that people should be neutral, but that people don't see people as neutral after a time. Just like how in real life, most consider Julius Caesar as being a good man, even though he in all reality, broke nearly all laws, and killed thousands in the name of progress.
And now, @Medvekoma
We're both arguing the same point here, I just have one fatal flaw, which I did not apparently state clearly enough in my previous post.
The main problem that we face is not in changing the system, but in changing how individuals act within the system.
And while we both agree that people should play neutral characters, that does not mean we can change how everyone else acts. People want to play characters they want to play. If someone wants to play a White Knight, no amount of speeches will change their mind. And while we try to keep a decent enough balance when it comes to approved characters (characters need both positive and negative traits) people are not bound to it. So while all of your ideas are great, the biggest, most tragic flaw is that we are humans. We're stupid, hypocritical, vile, nasty, beasts who claim to be heroic champions of the down trodden. We can't just change the mind of the masses, we've seen that in history.
Furthermore, whenever you get on, hold tab for a bit, and look at all the names that are displayed. How many of them do you know? How many of those players has your character even talked to? What makes all of those characters Good or Bad people? To your character, they're just the neutral masses, the waves of people that you've never met, nor will most likely ever deal with. Sure, most want to say that they are the good guys, but how many are just as willing to say that they're the antagonist, but they lack the means to impacting the server to any large degree? Sure, the nobles band together. But what of the common people who want to change the world as well. And just because in this one thread, in this one specific forum, you are telling them to change how they play the game that they find fun, will it really impact anything? Will anyone even listen? The solution put forward here so far is that we all need to change our point of view while role-playing, but the server is home to multiple hundreds of players, and controlling that many is difficult.
So what I'm asking you, is how do we get the people who want to play the shining knights or the mustache-twirling villains to actually play characters that are neutral?
Doc_Cantankerous
Second Foundationer
Amendment: (As I forgot suggesting a solution)
Perhaps our best course of action is more of a mission-work style, we let people know about it in the proper-RP thread/wiki page. We encourage people to play neutral characters. We work with them to develop characters that have more potential, that build up tension in new ways. But in the end, the most we can do is really encourage people to play neutral characters.
There is no way to force people to play neutral characters. It's hard enough explaining to them why being a vampire is against the law, or why they can't just beat up people. Heck, I even had to sit down with someone once and explain why they couldn't play a dog. And some of us remember the whole "I'm a Pineapple Yanar" situation... Remember, that we're dealing with younger people here. This is a much more complex idea to them than it is to those who are older. The world to some operates more on a basis that people who do things you like are 'good' and people who do things you don't like are 'bad'.
Perhaps our best course of action is more of a mission-work style, we let people know about it in the proper-RP thread/wiki page. We encourage people to play neutral characters. We work with them to develop characters that have more potential, that build up tension in new ways. But in the end, the most we can do is really encourage people to play neutral characters.
There is no way to force people to play neutral characters. It's hard enough explaining to them why being a vampire is against the law, or why they can't just beat up people. Heck, I even had to sit down with someone once and explain why they couldn't play a dog. And some of us remember the whole "I'm a Pineapple Yanar" situation... Remember, that we're dealing with younger people here. This is a much more complex idea to them than it is to those who are older. The world to some operates more on a basis that people who do things you like are 'good' and people who do things you don't like are 'bad'.
Or how about we keep allowing people to make characters how they please, and stop labeling them as "good", "bad", "protagonist", or "antagonist". Who are we to say someone's character is good or bad, when they are just being themselves.
Medvekoma
The Mysterious One
Weren't you the one who officially labelled my character evil and still has't provided an explanation?
This seems to be the most prominent difference I noticed when talking to people who generally play 'protagonists' and those who play 'antagonists'. When roleplaying, one has to understand that IC actions and IC traits of a character influence the roleplay scene both IC and OOC. Antagonists, and I think I have yet to meet one who doesn't, approve that most of the time, OOC decisions about a character have to be made to further the RP experience.
It's all a matter of question. Do you want to roleplay, or do you want to /roleplay a character/?
https://forums.massivecraft.com/threads/a-thing-or-two-about-roleplay-instigation.35683/
The current issue, especially in the noble scene (considering the Freya Lo example) is that a character either joins the ranks of the 'noble, righteous and just' families to become a 'protagonist', or opposes them and is branded an antagonist. Is that good? Is it good that you restrict your RP scene to one niché of characters and families? Is it positive that you force rising people that seek to join this scene into a decision of 'either with us or against us'?
On another matter, and I say this /especially/ to @Tahmas, you haven't really addressed the issue of this downwards spiral and how you would resolve the entertainment part /without/ antagonists rising against the 'protagonist' characters.
And for that matter, I inquire you to take a look at those who have posted in this thread, most if not all part of the noble scene. Which leads to the conclusion that the noble scene may serve as an example for RP in front of all those hundreds of players. And if there's something wrong with the noble scene, there may as well be something wrong with the global scene as well.
This statement implies that your IC and OOC goals are both 'to keep my position at all costs'. Is that good? Realistic, yes. But good? No. It prevents change in the scene and you'll be stuck with the same characters as always, which will result in the dreaded accusations of the scene being 'boring' and 'dull'.
I intentionally used 'protagonist' instead of 'good' because there is a lot of good characters on the server. The real question is how one becomes protagonist. And for that, check the definition I quoted, and check the characters that have been around for the longest time. Don't they fit the definition? Don't they fit my description? Don't they face the problems I mentioned and logically deducted IC and OOC?
Yet you mentioned the true problem I myself wrote as well. That a series of characters, specifically in the noble scene have closed themselves out of advancement due to their hero factor and lack of ambitions and thus their players meet OOC problems with their characters becoming 'worn out' or the scene growing 'dull'. It means that there's a set of characters who no longer want to advance, but want to hold on to their position. Is that a problem? No. Is that a problem when this prevents other characters from advancement? Yes.
https://forums.massivecraft.com/threads/a-thing-or-two-about-roleplay-instigation.35683/
https://forums.massivecraft.com/threads/a-thing-or-two-about-roleplay-instigation.35683/
It's in no way about that. The whole issue derives from the fact that it's either dissent between 'protagonists' and 'antagonists' or the protagonists complaining that the scene is dull.
The question is, why is it a majority? There have been numerous opposers to the current 'protagonists' who provided situations where siding with them would have possibly been far more logical for characters. Yet many chose the 'protagonists' instead out of fear that they'd lose their characters if they didn't. Or because they wanted to ride along with the 'protagonists' and saw the only way to get themselves involved in world progression to be joining up with the 'protagonists'. Isn't /that/ a limitation on RP?
Oh you can and it's easier than you'd think. Just watch the news and how public opinion shifts after an event or two.
Aren't stereotypical white knights against the RP rules though?
Mary Sue-ism is against the roleplay rules, that is. Let me remind you from where the whole term originates, which is a fan fiction for Star Trek where the author-avatar assumes a martyr and all-good position. Technically, it derives from an author's wish to create a character resembling themselves who assumes an all-good and powerful role to save something and become beloved by everyone. I'm not one to accuse half the server of having Mary Sues, I'm just saying that roleplay rules, not on Massivecraft only, ward against such because they are detrimental to the roleplay scene. It may not be apparent. Mary Sues can get together, enjoy each others' company, be 'good, heroic and almighty' together as well to oppose a common enemy.
But the problem is still there, and it resembles the 'protagonist' problem. If there isn't an enemy provided, stagnation occurs. And who provides the enemies? Those who RP antagonists. Do you want to make them spite what they do? Do you want to scare them away from doing such? Do you want to make their job a lot harder?
What IC decisions you do influence your OOC RP scene, which in turn influences your character back, and thus limits your entertainment and playability. You don't make certain decisions to break character because you want to break character and metagame. You make those decisions to better the RP scene and thus better your entertainment.
Enkiduu
Looming
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2015
- Messages
- 576
- Reaction score
- 2,383
- Points
- 0
lol, was gonna make a similar point, though in a less articulate way in regards to the immature and emotionally unaware. I was also gonna throw out the rather radical idea of just outright telling players what to think >v>
Anyway, here's some crap spewed forth, several radical ideas:
Solution: Hide usernames to prevent OOC metagaming based on the character's player.
Main Idea: Changing player's mindsets in regards to roleplay style by making them aware that there are different styles to begin with and pointing out that strict roleplay in Massive is of such-and-such style.
It seems one problem is a discrepancy between the more strict, realism-based RPing and the more lighter, immortal-respawning-adventurer RPG-type of RPing.
Here's a radical idea, cater to those people, give them a server-sponsored light RP environment.
One way to change people's way of thinking is to make them aware that something is different. Regalia is a strict RP environment, but it's also the only RP environment of significance and as such, players may go into it taking certain things for granted. Perhaps if the server had something to contrast with Regalia, it'd give attention to the fact that there are different styles of RPing. The mindset of the playerbase could be made to view Regalia as the more stricter environment with such and such style, while this hypothetical outside place is lighter with this other such and such style.
Main problem: Changing player's mindsets. But with a dynamic playerbase, how can one hope to teach every single new player other than one-on-one chance interactions?
Solution: Tell them what to think.
Problem: OOC Metagaming in regards to specific situations.
Solution: Take advantage of that and outright tell players what to think OOCly. You want to leave things to players and put faith in the hopes that they'd react the way you want, but sometimes that just doesn't happen.
Solution: Make things very simple and straight out tell people what they should think. Whether an OOC announcement or a newsletter or what. In plain words, say "such-and-such races/groups/characters should follow X character, this-and-that races/groups/characters should oppose X character"
Goal: Have people distant themselves from their characters. Reject their fundamental need to "win" on the internet and be right all the time. Can such a thing be possible outside of one-on-one hands-on teaching? Is it possible to teach something to a whole playerbase where new players come and go?
Goal: Conversely, have people be closer to their characters, have them be aware that characters come from different beliefs and cultures and mindsets and would have different, morally ambiguous sides that aren't necessarily black and white and as such wouldn't so easily beat down "antagonist" characters.
Goal: Create a morally ambiguous and diverse environment. Catch 21, the environment would be more diverse if players diversified, but players more easily diversify if the environment were diverse.
Goal: Get people to be grey knights, but how?
Solution: RP Socialism. Rather than leave things in the hands of players, have server/staff artificially create and manage groups/factions with which players can join and identify themselves with.
Idea: You can't change human nature, especially for the immature and emotionally unaware.
Problem: People don't feel safe/secure getting their AvaChars hurt.
Solution: Legalize but regulate immunity from injury/death, give players that choice but heavily discourage it. Give them that freedom but bash those that use it. It'd clearly make the bad RPers stand out, let them weed themselves out. Subconsciously they'll feel safe and free from pressure, but also feel that they're doing something wrong. Use reverse psychology.
The Character views you as evil because of the things you have done to him. No one sees Charlotte as being evil from an OOC perspective.
Because I do not majorly see an issue. I would wager a large portion of the server are enjoying roleplay, with the 'antagonists' that pop up and enjoy the challenges they pose. It is only the 'antagonists' who have an issue, because they believe that they get stopped before they get a chance to do anything. Which is what our characters /would/ do.
Good and bad? Who really gets the choice to say what is good and bad? It fits my character, and that's how we play out characters. This is a game, and this is something we do for /fun/. Would you like me to completely break character just so someone gets a chance to put more people at risk? Constant infighting destabilizes organisations, and it makes sense for certain characters to want to protect that stability. I don't fancy breaking my character just because someone else can't be arsed to work around that problem. Andrieu did it, he got under everyones noses and was, in my opinion, the greatest 'antagonist' the RP scene has seen this far.
They don't. They're doing it for selfish desires, not to be a white knight.
Didn't prevent Andrieu. Why should it prevent anyone else? Andrieu proved that it was possible. He went from being the Brother of a Viceroy to essential Emperor through underhanded and background actions. It's possible for anyone else to do it.
Is it though? Is it /truly/ a limitation? Perhaps they want to keep their characters, why is that not okay? They spent time into that character, enjoy seeing this wonderful world we've all created together through that characters eyes? People log onto this server and spend hours, pouring time and energy into this progressive and large story of the server for everyone to enjoy. The only limitation on roleplay is you. (You as a generalised sense, not you as in /you/ directly).
Medvekoma
The Mysterious One
The antagonists, or opposers feel that playing such is unrewarding because they are forced into throwaway characters. Technically, it's unfair for a server to have 'entertained' and 'entertainers' without this being at least recognised.
And do you think Andrieu's deeds would have been possible without the help of the lore staff? Even in him, I see an antagonist made to entertain the server. Which is not bad at all, but it'd be even better if the server would entertain itself.
The definition of a protagonist, that's what I linked in that post.
Full Definition of protagonist
1a : the principal character in a literary work (as a drama or story)
b : a leading actor, character, or participant in a literary work or real event
Don't they fit it?
On the way he condemned himself to a downfall. Should all antagonists fall down sometimes? Or would it be better if there was just oppositions, instead of 'banding together and awaiting entertainment'?
The issue of this thread is antagonists unable to play antagonists. That is a limitation, because a lot of players rely on antagonists for entertainment.
By stating that, you technically say there's nothing wrong right now. Do you think as such?
What you're suggesting is that we turn away from the problem instead of recognize it. Certain characters are going to be subconsciously labeled as good or bad regardless of if we say not to label them.
I think a solution has been presented through the new Honneurs update. This forces people to spread out and take sides instead of grouping up in the "good guy" clique. Which does exist, because I can admit I contribute to it inadvertently. We all know it does and it does not help to dance around that fact when discussing a solution to it.
babaMP3
innocent until proven filthy
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2012
- Messages
- 308
- Reaction score
- 3,149
- Points
- 633
- Location
- San Francisco
- Website
- twitter.com
A side note:
Most of the antagonists described and implied have been characters that lasted perhaps six months at the most, whereas much of the protagonists have been around for years and years. With that fact drawn, I'll talk about the implications it presents and be conclusions I've drawn from them:
Most of the antagonists described and implied have been characters that lasted perhaps six months at the most, whereas much of the protagonists have been around for years and years. With that fact drawn, I'll talk about the implications it presents and be conclusions I've drawn from them:
- People who play antagonists are never too attached to their characters -- more so the scene and story. That is to say that they, much like the protagonists, care for their character and its development, though perhaps less because of the attached sentiment and applied value, but for the sake of storytelling and keeping a dynamic plot alive.
- Protagonists are very attached to their characters. Perhaps it's sentiment to the character and it's memories, the simple draw to play that one specific character indefinitely, or so on. No one would ever fault anyone for loving their character and wanting to keep it. However, this draws into my third point:
- Any progression in the overall storyline or domestic Regalian scene that isn't directed and enforced by @MonMarty is immediately stubbed and attacked for the sake of protecting character interests. I've noticed a lot of talk about not wanting to break character versus the practicality of turning the storybooks page despite the characters desires. I know I can say for myself that there have been countless things my character(s) would have done because it would have made perfect sense for them to have done it, but I didn't do it because it either wasn't practical to the story's progression or it'd spiral into a mess for a whole slew of other people not even relevant to the domestic plot progression.
- Joined
- May 9, 2013
- Messages
- 225
- Reaction score
- 1,943
- Points
- 653
- Age
- 31
Let it be noted that the only reason I kept m
Let it be noted that I had Tristan listed as an A because I will not allow that character to die, become maimed, or crippled.
I will not allow Tristan to suffer physically because I am handicapped in real life, Have been for 16 years. I will not play a cripple in rp even if I'd be good at it. Well, not with Tristan anyways.
I will allow Tristan to suffer in any other way, though.
(Yeah. Rate me goth. I like it. ;D )
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.
____________________________________________
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.
TL
Let it be noted that I had Tristan listed as an A because I will not allow that character to die, become maimed, or crippled.
I will not allow Tristan to suffer physically because I am handicapped in real life, Have been for 16 years. I will not play a cripple in rp even if I'd be good at it. Well, not with Tristan anyways.
I will allow Tristan to suffer in any other way, though.
(Yeah. Rate me goth. I like it. ;D )
Last edited:
I personally think that a main protagonist is needed for Regalia. To quote MonMarty, things just get boring without big political changes and whatnot. Although Andriue brought a gloomy atmosphere to Regalia, people were having a blast OOC. I know I enjoyed it and so did my friends. What about the Baver Scandal? Or when the Sultanate invaded Regalia? People had loads of fun there. When there's nothing happening, things just get slow and boring. I can't tell you how many times I've spent just sitting in the tavern, waiting for something to happen. When there is a big event in play, roleplay is easier to find and more fun to carry out.
Maybe I'm just saying it because I'm a big criminal roleplayer, but I know many agree with me when I say that having something evil in Regalia happening is fun. One of the many guidelines to writing a great story is to have evil things happen to the characters so as to create development and keep the plot exciting. The progression of Regalia, in my eyes, is a story.
I don't think people should be awarded an instantly powerful family when they want to play an Antagonist. I believe people who want to be Antagonists should work towards it, and develop their characters. Currently, my character Santiago is in a great spot criminal-rp wise and dare I say I think he's getting more popular. He's a smuggler and drug lord, and his gang controls a large portion of the sewers. Occasionally, they perform heists portrayed in player quests, and currently I'm planning a few. Meanwhile, he's a bureaucrat of the Imperial Palace and contrary to his twin Lorenzo, he has proven his loyalty to the Empire when in fact he despises it. Needless to say, I plan for Santiago to be a large Antagonist to Regalia in the upcoming year.
My point is, Santiago started from nothing, and look where he's at now. He used to be a total commoner whom mostly everyone disregarded given that he was your typical vampire criminal. Now, he is the baron of La Manga. He owns a large smuggling business that is laundered by innocent trading. He is a growing political figure and a growing threat in the sewers. Sure everyone hates him, and beats down the idea of him. But isn't that all a part of being an Antagonist? I can't exactly think of one who everyone loves. Even with everyone hating him, and even with alot of people disliking me for playing him, and disliking what I do with him, I absolutely love playing Santiago.
I don't think we require a solution to antagonist roleplay. While I acknowledge that the facts that Marty stated are completely true, and actively happening at the moment, I don't feel that way myself. Forgive the self praising, but I feel as if Santiago is a growing antagonist and I'm proud to have reached this state without the aid of staff, or being instantly given a powerful family. Santiago grew to this current state after a year of self development. Now, his family was one of the hot topics during the conference. His cousin is an Imperial Guard, etc.
I think it is completely possible to make another Antagonist after your previous one was shut down. My previous Antagonist before Santiago wasn't exactly a big one per se, but he was a criminal idol that caused much argument after he was slain from something having to do with the Luthien Scandal. Even when my reputation crashed after him, I think I've done a great job developing Santiago to be a powerful criminal, and now even Grigori, the friendly Reverend that everyone is coming to like.
So my solution, if it even is one, is work hard. Work hard and you'll get to where you want to be. If you ask Shayin, I'm assuming he'll probably tell you that developing Andrieu into what he became was not easy. Same with Shuikenai, and Freya. The problem of course is that now that they have played their antagonists, people beat them down for wanting to make another one. Well the solution, as I've said, is to ignore that and work hard. I've been beaten down plenty of times and I'm still carrying on.
I know this is an incredibly biased suggestion, but I guess it's just what I feel. Work hard and don't let people put you down. Try to make great relations OOCly and idolize your characer ICly. If you feel halted, ask staff members for help. Shayin once said that the lore staff literally encourage and promote criminal roleplay, and that they are there to help. If you want to be an antagonist, or rather make yet another antagonist as some are trying to do, just go for it and shoot for the stars. The multitude of problems that come to face you when trying to make another antagonist are sooo many that you're better off just ignoring them, ignoring what people say and just do it.
Maybe I'm just saying it because I'm a big criminal roleplayer, but I know many agree with me when I say that having something evil in Regalia happening is fun. One of the many guidelines to writing a great story is to have evil things happen to the characters so as to create development and keep the plot exciting. The progression of Regalia, in my eyes, is a story.
I don't think people should be awarded an instantly powerful family when they want to play an Antagonist. I believe people who want to be Antagonists should work towards it, and develop their characters. Currently, my character Santiago is in a great spot criminal-rp wise and dare I say I think he's getting more popular. He's a smuggler and drug lord, and his gang controls a large portion of the sewers. Occasionally, they perform heists portrayed in player quests, and currently I'm planning a few. Meanwhile, he's a bureaucrat of the Imperial Palace and contrary to his twin Lorenzo, he has proven his loyalty to the Empire when in fact he despises it. Needless to say, I plan for Santiago to be a large Antagonist to Regalia in the upcoming year.
My point is, Santiago started from nothing, and look where he's at now. He used to be a total commoner whom mostly everyone disregarded given that he was your typical vampire criminal. Now, he is the baron of La Manga. He owns a large smuggling business that is laundered by innocent trading. He is a growing political figure and a growing threat in the sewers. Sure everyone hates him, and beats down the idea of him. But isn't that all a part of being an Antagonist? I can't exactly think of one who everyone loves. Even with everyone hating him, and even with alot of people disliking me for playing him, and disliking what I do with him, I absolutely love playing Santiago.
I don't think we require a solution to antagonist roleplay. While I acknowledge that the facts that Marty stated are completely true, and actively happening at the moment, I don't feel that way myself. Forgive the self praising, but I feel as if Santiago is a growing antagonist and I'm proud to have reached this state without the aid of staff, or being instantly given a powerful family. Santiago grew to this current state after a year of self development. Now, his family was one of the hot topics during the conference. His cousin is an Imperial Guard, etc.
I think it is completely possible to make another Antagonist after your previous one was shut down. My previous Antagonist before Santiago wasn't exactly a big one per se, but he was a criminal idol that caused much argument after he was slain from something having to do with the Luthien Scandal. Even when my reputation crashed after him, I think I've done a great job developing Santiago to be a powerful criminal, and now even Grigori, the friendly Reverend that everyone is coming to like.
So my solution, if it even is one, is work hard. Work hard and you'll get to where you want to be. If you ask Shayin, I'm assuming he'll probably tell you that developing Andrieu into what he became was not easy. Same with Shuikenai, and Freya. The problem of course is that now that they have played their antagonists, people beat them down for wanting to make another one. Well the solution, as I've said, is to ignore that and work hard. I've been beaten down plenty of times and I'm still carrying on.
I know this is an incredibly biased suggestion, but I guess it's just what I feel. Work hard and don't let people put you down. Try to make great relations OOCly and idolize your characer ICly. If you feel halted, ask staff members for help. Shayin once said that the lore staff literally encourage and promote criminal roleplay, and that they are there to help. If you want to be an antagonist, or rather make yet another antagonist as some are trying to do, just go for it and shoot for the stars. The multitude of problems that come to face you when trying to make another antagonist are sooo many that you're better off just ignoring them, ignoring what people say and just do it.
babaMP3
innocent until proven filthy
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2012
- Messages
- 308
- Reaction score
- 3,149
- Points
- 633
- Location
- San Francisco
- Website
- twitter.com
Tibertastic
Man of the People
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2015
- Messages
- 272
- Reaction score
- 1,643
- Points
- 258
So far I believe the arguments are as stands:
For example:
Bob and Jim are best friends. If Jim stole a piece of bread and Brad was not loyal to his best friend he would Report for Theft and which his friend spend time beneath the cell, just after Bob gets into a big argument to Jim over his disloyalty and it would blossom into a situation of which both would deal with finding a new friend or apologizing.
Anton and Charlotte are man and wife. If Anton was cheating on Charlotte and she was loyal she would not care or report her findings as loyalty to her husband was pressed into her in which no tenuous roleplay is produced.
On the opinion of goal driven narrative I think it has an influence on the opinion of the character and his they mould themselves and argues that perspective is key to how different characters perceive people. I also believe outside situations and positions influence such too.
For example:
Anton's goal is to become Lord Commander of the Violet Order. Though this would naturally place both William Coen and Anton as rivals due to Anton as a character his means to an end is different as he achieves his aim much slower by enlisting into the Violet Order and becoming a student/protege of William and rising through the ranks.
Andrieu aimed to achieve unity and reignite the Empire as one force <?>, he had the power of Arch-Chancellor, an unrivalled position, due to the Emperor's comatose and the docile nature of the State Council. By becoming the Lord Protector he could've achieved his aims by placing favourable reforms and changes or by creating himself as one big target for all to fight. It however did succeed in its intended manner.
I believe the issue of distinguishing antagonist and protagonist is no issue at all as it is internal and unique to everyone's role play experience. However I do believe our flaw, which severely weakens the concept of ambitious, self serving characters, is the world in which they have grew up in. Being good and just is almost seen as a base norm as everyone protects their kin or whole-heartedly is ready to die for Unionism. Which I think creates the situation that ambitious characters cannot thrive in unless they have already the power to cause chaos and drive role play. That begs the question, Should we reward antagonist?
No, I believe we only allow an environment in which these good traits are not such a base upon society and that if one ever chose to commit something ambitious they would have a similarly minded invidiuals along with them.
- We should allow people to dictate as they will, throw out the rulebook.
- Part from OOC influence in order to promote RP.
- A strong belief in that characters goals drive their narrative.
For example:
Bob and Jim are best friends. If Jim stole a piece of bread and Brad was not loyal to his best friend he would Report for Theft and which his friend spend time beneath the cell, just after Bob gets into a big argument to Jim over his disloyalty and it would blossom into a situation of which both would deal with finding a new friend or apologizing.
Anton and Charlotte are man and wife. If Anton was cheating on Charlotte and she was loyal she would not care or report her findings as loyalty to her husband was pressed into her in which no tenuous roleplay is produced.
On the opinion of goal driven narrative I think it has an influence on the opinion of the character and his they mould themselves and argues that perspective is key to how different characters perceive people. I also believe outside situations and positions influence such too.
For example:
Anton's goal is to become Lord Commander of the Violet Order. Though this would naturally place both William Coen and Anton as rivals due to Anton as a character his means to an end is different as he achieves his aim much slower by enlisting into the Violet Order and becoming a student/protege of William and rising through the ranks.
Andrieu aimed to achieve unity and reignite the Empire as one force <?>, he had the power of Arch-Chancellor, an unrivalled position, due to the Emperor's comatose and the docile nature of the State Council. By becoming the Lord Protector he could've achieved his aims by placing favourable reforms and changes or by creating himself as one big target for all to fight. It however did succeed in its intended manner.
I believe the issue of distinguishing antagonist and protagonist is no issue at all as it is internal and unique to everyone's role play experience. However I do believe our flaw, which severely weakens the concept of ambitious, self serving characters, is the world in which they have grew up in. Being good and just is almost seen as a base norm as everyone protects their kin or whole-heartedly is ready to die for Unionism. Which I think creates the situation that ambitious characters cannot thrive in unless they have already the power to cause chaos and drive role play. That begs the question, Should we reward antagonist?
No, I believe we only allow an environment in which these good traits are not such a base upon society and that if one ever chose to commit something ambitious they would have a similarly minded invidiuals along with them.
babaMP3
innocent until proven filthy
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2012
- Messages
- 308
- Reaction score
- 3,149
- Points
- 633
- Location
- San Francisco
- Website
- twitter.com
So what you're effectively saying is: "I acknowledge what the proposed problem is, and given the supplied evidence and overall acceptance of the problem occurring, it is not happening. Despite it happening."
Baba, the entire post that I made is a biased opinion. I don't really want to get into an argument, so I will try to word this without getting provocative.
What I said was, I acknowledge the fact that what marty said(he said shuikenai beats down and thwarted) is true and actively happening, I just don't feel that that type of stuff happens to me. In short, this is what I'm saying. "The problem is that people get beat and shut down, but I don't feel that that problem applies to me." I then proceeded to explain why, and How I got to where I am.
I very much hope this has cleared your, and anyone else's doubts.
What I said was, I acknowledge the fact that what marty said(he said shuikenai beats down and thwarted) is true and actively happening, I just don't feel that that type of stuff happens to me. In short, this is what I'm saying. "The problem is that people get beat and shut down, but I don't feel that that problem applies to me." I then proceeded to explain why, and How I got to where I am.
I very much hope this has cleared your, and anyone else's doubts.
Medvekoma
The Mysterious One
Characters with applications make up for around 10% of all characters, I'd say. And many develop a character first and apply for them later which kind of hinders alterations.
Guides can always be published, but who ensures they are read? Some quotes arose from a previous guide/article posted, with partially the same issues debated here that promted the publishing of that article.
I think a change in attitude on the highest levels can do wonders, and as such a more in-depth discussion may prove useful where nobles, aristocrats, guards, sewer gang leaders, merchants and everyone else who 'moves' RP is present.
I still hold myself to the fact that all IC decisions and all mistakes in character design contribute to the flaws of the RP scene, and as such change must be embraced where necessary.
@Shayin made a thread back in the days on how one can 'win' without 'defeating' someone and how characters can be preserved. I think the same can apply to all RP situations, and antagonist-players shouldn't be the ones on whom the level of overal activity depends.
@babayonce perhaps it'd be interesting to do another survey on character motives, roleplay style and OOC goals?
Doc_Cantankerous
Second Foundationer
Now how do we get everyone on the server to change their mindset? You keep saying people need to change the way they play, but how do we get them to do it? If guides don't work, do we put in a rule that states that all characters can die without the owner's consent? That would change it so that people only see their characters as separate entities that have no feelings, no real value. You keep coming back to how change is needed. How about giving us a way to change. If all we do is parade around that we need to do things differently, and not actually attempt anything at all, the problem will not go away. And don't reply with "We all need to change for the good of the server" because that goes back around to attempting to change human nature, which if we could do here, we should probably begin telling all of humanity.
I would honestly love to hear how you want us to go about the change, instead of just arguing that we need to change.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2012
- Messages
- 4,429
- Reaction score
- 34,414
- Points
- 663
- Age
- 33
I think the reality of this thread has more so become a gauge for me to test the water in terms of what I can do, where my liberties and limitations lie in terms of using staff means to create roleplay progression.
Tibertastic
Man of the People
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2015
- Messages
- 272
- Reaction score
- 1,643
- Points
- 258
I think we've exhausted it, hah.
Eledana
Barely present
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2013
- Messages
- 155
- Reaction score
- 483
- Points
- 0
Not sure if I'm conveying this properly, but if you get the jist of what I'm getting at, lovely. If not, no harm. These are my thoughts, and they're not necessarily the right way to go about this. Note that I'm using the terms antagonist/protagonist for ease - because honestly they apply in different ways. Antagonists aren't just found within noble roleplay or IC politics, et cetera. Antagonists are found all about. Characters who we might consider protagonists, can be antagonists at times, and vice versa, so to me, personally, the terms aren't always applicable to a character and are therefore not very sturdy labels. Characters and people can surprise at any time, and their actions depend on all sorts of circumstances, so using these terms seems just a tad silly, but as a general sort of label and for simplicity's sake, I'll use them.
To antagonists:
To antagonists:
- Protagonists should do their best to allow some freedom for antagonists, but expect that there will still be a challenge. If there were no challenge, no opposition whatsoever, an antagonist simply wouldn't be an antagonist. There will always be some challenge, something one should be prepared for when roleplaying an antagonist, but it should never be impossible. Respect that not everyone is ready or interested in having an antagonist character. Be aware of your boundaries, and be aware of theirs. An antagonist is a demanding character, but should never be overwhelmingly difficult.
- Antagonists should expect some challenge from protagonists, because it wouldn't make sense for a protagonist to give up and let the protagonist do whatever. That would erase the purpose of both roles, and wouldn't make the protagonist much of a protagonist. Even so, it isn't breaking character to do something unexpected. All species and races on MassiveCraft experience emotions just like us, and can do unexpected things, just like us. People surprise us all the time in real life. People open up and do sudden things that we never would have initially expected them to do. Breaking character sometimes does not mean you are a terrible writer. It does not mean that you aren't roleplaying correctly. It is natural, and even realistic in certain circumstances. In other words, breaking character isn't always breaking character.
It's hard to be an antagonist.
I've only recently gotten into roleplaying. But from my understanding, it should go a little like this. When you roleplay, your effectively adding a section to an enormous book. Every roleplay action is part of that story. Sure there's bad books, but who reads bad books? The more you roleplay and develop a good story, the more rewarding it is.
My next character is a pranking trouble maker whom is just trying to have a good time. I want him to develop more mentally and mature as I rp more with him and because quite frankly, being mischevious is hard. I'm not into the whole "sitting at a tavern and either sharing cringy adventure stories or discussing boring politics". Conflict and drama is what makes stories exciting. However as an anatagonist whom is just a "generic bad guy" you run into three scenarios. 1) You get stopped in your tracks by guards or someone whom is superior to you either in rp status or strength. Unless you're really clever, you're either getting beat up or going to greygate. This is good for character development, if it didn't happen everytime. No one wants to be on the team that loses every game. 2) You run into someone who attempts to get themselves out of conflict. This either happens by them making themself super OP or by simply ignoring conflict. Another common occurence. 3) You run into someone chill and actually have a good rp session (it's sad how rare this is).
That's a bit more text than I expected to write initally. Excuse any poor grammar or anything, I'm typing this on my phone and my fingers are ungraceful.
Tl;dr The solution for succesful conflict is the roleplay community needs to adjust its attitude. Characters are special, yes. But they are not shiny trophies meant to not have a single blemish (at least most of them). Quite frankly, shiny, blemish free trophies are boring.
I've only recently gotten into roleplaying. But from my understanding, it should go a little like this. When you roleplay, your effectively adding a section to an enormous book. Every roleplay action is part of that story. Sure there's bad books, but who reads bad books? The more you roleplay and develop a good story, the more rewarding it is.
My next character is a pranking trouble maker whom is just trying to have a good time. I want him to develop more mentally and mature as I rp more with him and because quite frankly, being mischevious is hard. I'm not into the whole "sitting at a tavern and either sharing cringy adventure stories or discussing boring politics". Conflict and drama is what makes stories exciting. However as an anatagonist whom is just a "generic bad guy" you run into three scenarios. 1) You get stopped in your tracks by guards or someone whom is superior to you either in rp status or strength. Unless you're really clever, you're either getting beat up or going to greygate. This is good for character development, if it didn't happen everytime. No one wants to be on the team that loses every game. 2) You run into someone who attempts to get themselves out of conflict. This either happens by them making themself super OP or by simply ignoring conflict. Another common occurence. 3) You run into someone chill and actually have a good rp session (it's sad how rare this is).
That's a bit more text than I expected to write initally. Excuse any poor grammar or anything, I'm typing this on my phone and my fingers are ungraceful.
Tl;dr The solution for succesful conflict is the roleplay community needs to adjust its attitude. Characters are special, yes. But they are not shiny trophies meant to not have a single blemish (at least most of them). Quite frankly, shiny, blemish free trophies are boring.
InDogsWeTrust
sleeping bees
TheLimpet
In this life it's either bitch or be bitched.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2015
- Messages
- 64
- Reaction score
- 263
- Points
- 0
I personally have had a lot of characters of mine die in RP or out of game. Sometimes that's the end of their story, they're dead "That's that." But on other times I have a new character bud out of that occasion. Some of my favorite characters that I've played stem from the death from a past character of mine. Ether by being involved with the people in the killing or simply being at the execution. Because of this I have created a giant web of motivations for my characters those dead and those still living. Which is why I believe @Doc_Cantank summed it up perfectly. New and better characters can result from past ones.
On a separate note, I do like the idea of having some registered antagonists. Mostly for the reason of people's immortality complexes and the inability to have an antagonists truly do anything anymore. I personally have a budding antagonists by the name of Doctor Ozek. A lying and persuasive surgeon / mortician that takes inspiration from The Beast from Over the Garden Wall and Jack the Ripper. He has quickly become one of my mains and one of my most favorite characters I've ever made. I would love to have the opportunity for him to be able to grow into a larger and true antagonist. Instead of him just staying an insignificant waste of time. A character unable to be properly played.
On a separate note, I do like the idea of having some registered antagonists. Mostly for the reason of people's immortality complexes and the inability to have an antagonists truly do anything anymore. I personally have a budding antagonists by the name of Doctor Ozek. A lying and persuasive surgeon / mortician that takes inspiration from The Beast from Over the Garden Wall and Jack the Ripper. He has quickly become one of my mains and one of my most favorite characters I've ever made. I would love to have the opportunity for him to be able to grow into a larger and true antagonist. Instead of him just staying an insignificant waste of time. A character unable to be properly played.
TL
It's hard to let the perfect version of yourself (in reference to people and their characters) to become flawed, maimed, or hurt. I experienced something rather odd when I found out Kaleel was permanently unable to hold a sword (losing two fingers and a piece of his hand) in his right hand and effectively became a Regalian Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle.
People don't want their characters to be hurt because they make them to escape the real world (IRL) of pain and suffering. It's true.
Seeing a threat to the survival of their character makes them fear a break in this Utopian thought process. Meaning any Antagonist will be shut down in any way possible.
My solution to the problem is not to reserve maim/death perms to the player. Any character should be able to be maimed or even killed. But then that brings up the whole 'I worked so hard on this character and you're just going to kill him?' BS and that's a whole different problem in itself.
By eradicating the safety net, it might tighten the rope. So to speak.
TheLimpet
In this life it's either bitch or be bitched.
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2015
- Messages
- 64
- Reaction score
- 263
- Points
- 0
That just means less people will partake in events and will create a disconnect between players and the world they interact in. Meaning that events would be full of npcs or much much smaller. Smaller events are clearly less appealing and would result in a higher risk for each character involved. I think that it should be main or kill perms exclusive if you want to partake in certain events, not all events. Or you could leave the system as is because an outcome of an event is almost predecided. There was no way that Lo would have won because the player base was ready to move on. Forcing perms won't effect the outcome, it will only make the road there much duller.
Magivore
No Rest For The Wicked
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,193
- Reaction score
- 6,683
- Points
- 0
No it won't. It will enable poor Chaotic Evil characters to come along and murder good characters. There's a reason why you didn't see many Deathlings in the sewers, and even why hardly any were on the streets after about a week. Everyone and anyone could kill them, so your supposed idea of entertainment could now be slain, and be at risk of it, every moment you spend around someone you oppose. Most of the time, I see the issue stemming from people believing that the heroes should, and always, win as soon as possible. This can be from a kidnapping only lasting half an hour to simply people coming to raid a base of someone who is 'evil' in order to remove them. I often hear people speaking about the wish for full-scale invasions, and how fun it is to have some sort of leader overseeing everything with a sinister gaze, but it is rare people allow such a thing to happen. I haven't even had my Zehler approved as a character (technically), nor have I even set up some sort of full base for my coven, yet I already have people wanting to cause civil wars, fights, raids, and are asking me ways in how they can 1v1 my Zehler. If I always allowed people to kill my character, especially in this case, I would lose this new ability to possibly be a mass antagonist within days. People just need to let other people reach their goals at times, as otherwise you're stuck with a mundane, stoic character. You'll notice that a lot of people who get bored tend to not be part of big, story-arching situations.
Last edited:
Yeah I'll just try to say this as politely as possible.
Dude are you fucking serious?
TinySnowcloud
Growing Blizzard of Dreams
I'm just gonna add on to this, especially now that Freya Lo has died (again) and we're now in a villain vacuum.
Stories have a natural progression and flow that they follow-- Think of it like the rise and fall of tides on the coast. It's a cycle. You start from a place of comfort and safety, and gradually move into a place of uncertainty, danger, and low-points that can be characterized as climaxes. In general, think of the Hero's Journey (look it up if you want, as it's very interesting). You can't just constantly have climaxes, you have to have time to set up and prepare plotlines. This is especially important since we are currently in a time of repair. This is a period where there won't be as much conflict, nor will the conflict be as broadly significant. Use this time to build up bonds and relationships that you can call upon once things start reaching a head again. If we constantly stomp out every minor threat, we will never have major climaxes. Invest a little in the prospective villain by giving him some victories. Give him a chance to grow into the monster you wish to conquer, and then fight him. And perhaps you'll lose-- Every hero doesn't win. But that's ok, because we're all in the business of telling stories, and tragedy tells great stories.
tin77
The Tin Can Man
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2015
- Messages
- 62
- Reaction score
- 179
- Points
- 0
I remember I tried to make a "Evil" character who went around terrorizing people because he had fallen into his own self-fulfilling prophecy of narcissism. The problem? After a while the character couldn't really be considered evil anymore or pose any real threat due to the nature of other roleplayers themselves. He just became a bumbling dunce who couldn't do anything or pose any threat, that's just how he ended up.
From that I learned that it's very hard to just say "Oh, I want this character to be a hero" or "Oh, I want this character to become the next Mrs. Baver." Characters are often shaped by their beginning interactions with the world. Did I want Za'har Desite to be a malicious mage who only focused on indulging in pleasure? Yes. Did it work out that way? No.
A lot of you have said before that no character should truly be good or evil, to which I agree. Villains are supposed to arise from the player interactions. They can either be smaller ones to specific groups or ones that everyone on the server fear. Personally I think this is the joy in playing on the server. You never know how an event or a character may turn out, because there's a lot of players with a lot of characters who are all going to do their own thing. Streako above me probably has one of the strongest points involving this dilemma. The world is apart of one giant story that's going to be broken up into various archs.
I do think it's interesting to have a major villain, but one characters can mostly interact with. Mrs. Baver is a classic character, for the longest time she was mysterious and no one knew much about her presence. There was also a lot of moments where the player could take part in vital moments involving her and when I was young on the server, I loved that. Made me feel like I was in some sort of major adventure. In terms of a large antagonist I think we should scale it down just a bit. Despite my love for said battles, they were a bit disjointed and not a lot was contributed during them. Seeing as vampires are often abused and done incorrectly, wouldn't it be interesting to have a major faction to be a threat in the sewers and not necessarily be something large? It'd make sense seeing as Regalia is recovering, it's something not everyone has to deal with because it's just sort of an optional problem in the sewers.
I don't think I can say anything related to the creation of antagonists though due to what's been said above me. I don't think there should be specific rules or gifts but we should have some sort of way of getting them out there. Perhaps special applications?
From that I learned that it's very hard to just say "Oh, I want this character to be a hero" or "Oh, I want this character to become the next Mrs. Baver." Characters are often shaped by their beginning interactions with the world. Did I want Za'har Desite to be a malicious mage who only focused on indulging in pleasure? Yes. Did it work out that way? No.
A lot of you have said before that no character should truly be good or evil, to which I agree. Villains are supposed to arise from the player interactions. They can either be smaller ones to specific groups or ones that everyone on the server fear. Personally I think this is the joy in playing on the server. You never know how an event or a character may turn out, because there's a lot of players with a lot of characters who are all going to do their own thing. Streako above me probably has one of the strongest points involving this dilemma. The world is apart of one giant story that's going to be broken up into various archs.
I do think it's interesting to have a major villain, but one characters can mostly interact with. Mrs. Baver is a classic character, for the longest time she was mysterious and no one knew much about her presence. There was also a lot of moments where the player could take part in vital moments involving her and when I was young on the server, I loved that. Made me feel like I was in some sort of major adventure. In terms of a large antagonist I think we should scale it down just a bit. Despite my love for said battles, they were a bit disjointed and not a lot was contributed during them. Seeing as vampires are often abused and done incorrectly, wouldn't it be interesting to have a major faction to be a threat in the sewers and not necessarily be something large? It'd make sense seeing as Regalia is recovering, it's something not everyone has to deal with because it's just sort of an optional problem in the sewers.
I don't think I can say anything related to the creation of antagonists though due to what's been said above me. I don't think there should be specific rules or gifts but we should have some sort of way of getting them out there. Perhaps special applications?
A fascinating post MonMarty! As of now, these are my thoughts on making a prominent character, and indeed a villain. The trick I've found in RP with these situations, is precisely the same trick I've found with writing villains in fiction: you have to give the villain a connection to all the other major players in the story. Where this becomes complicated in my opinion in massive craft, is that you can't simply write a backstory involving every major character in the server, and even if you do, there is zero guarantee that any of the hundreds of players who log on here will read it.
Hence, I've started going about the process differently as of late. Recently, I retired my main set of characters, with one going into a slow, gradual retirement. With my new set of characters, one of whom I hope to turn into quite the villain, I am right now trying to not involve them in too many of the major story events. The reason begin this being, no one knows who the characters are yet. Once I have made them a familiar face in the RP world however like persay, Noelle Hath, Astrid Kade, or Shae Wren, then I plan on testing the waters to see if these characters are of a caliber to try world scale events out, or Isle-wide schemes.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2012
- Messages
- 4,429
- Reaction score
- 34,414
- Points
- 663
- Age
- 33
I'm actually gonna lock this thread because I disagree with the premise. I wrote this a long time ago and have discovered and experienced new things that made me disagree with it entirely.
- Status
