Killing And Why It Kills Roleplay

[Rissing 199]

Not killing equals having a random army running after you the next day.
Other than that I always tell people they can remember everything besides me.
Easy enough..

[Kim 1328]

Not killing equals having a random army running after you the next day.

Other than that I always tell people they can remember everything besides me.

Easy enough..

I don't think that's how the second part works, since the memory loss is a side affect of the monks, even if the OOC purpose is to keep random armies from coming after you after a death. AND, it's kind of the killers fault if an entire ARMY is sent after them. Going after someone who has 'random armies' to throw around after a single person shouldn't be an easy target to get away with murdering anyways. 

[Booklight12 481]

I completely agree with you. This is part of the basis I melded my character to who he is now, and why he refuses to kill people. A bit to a further extent of general non violence but still the idea is good. This probably can't be enforced well but really, the person doing the deed just needs to think before killing, and look over why they do their criminal acts. Why do I kill? For fun? I like to hear people grasp for life? Sadistic, but OOCly not the best reason to kill and is generally just fun for the person doing the killing. Perhaps on the other side, this person killed my family member, tortured a friend, or as you said for a ritual requiring sacrifice. Those are good reasons to kill someone and are completely understandable. Not just blatantly killing someone on the road refusing to give you armor or food. Even for the person doing the attack, it's sometimes more fun to just beat a person up who threatened your honor. Where after they are knocked out or beaten they fear you and won't bother you any longer. Aye?

[Rig 17591]

+1

All good villains follow the logic you've painted out. 

[Rissing 199]

+1

All good villains follow the logic you've painted out. 

Taking away all those with mental disorders.

And that's where VAs where a good thing.. for insane characters.

[Sky 0]

Everyone must remember that the villain has their own role play too. One thing that I've always disagreed upon is that the villain is here to give you entertaining role play and have believed that everyone is here to give each and everyone of us entertaining role play. Unfortunately there comes times where a player needs or wants to kill you and the role play that they have given you, is more for their advancement not yours. 

 

I do agree that killing should be a last resort on a one on one sort of role play situation, I also believe that forgetting everything that led up to your death is vague and some sort of timer should be put onto it. 

 

Interesting read, I don't agree with some parts and posts but that's life, nice thread.

[Lima 774]

I also believe that forgetting everything that led up to your death is vague and some sort of timer should be put onto it. 

Is it really though?

I have never considered it vague at all, if your in a event line for example your death due to event related attacks, especially if the ET kills you specifically causes you to forget your involvement with the event.

My character was killed with the axe of krug trying to destroy the elven word altar, I have RPed him losing all knowledge of holding the axe in the 2 hours it was around and the majority of my awareness of the event line and its participants. I was killed in RP, if I return dead its stupid.

I just don't feel people wish to roleplay the scope that the rule would dictate must be done.

Which leads me to believe death is a worst case scenario, and that it should be avoided. There just needs to be more options available to deal with characters who choose to be antagonistic so that RPly people are able to truly produce a resolution.

[Sky 0]

Is it really though?

I have never considered it vague at all, if your in a event line for example your death due to event related attacks, especially if the ET kills you specifically causes you to forget your involvement with the event.

My character was killed with the axe of krug trying to destroy the elven word altar, I have RPed him losing all knowledge of holding the axe in the 2 hours it was around and the majority of my awareness of the event line and its participants. I was killed in RP, if I return dead its stupid.

I just don't feel people wish to roleplay the scope that the rule would dictate must be done.

Which leads me to believe death is a worst case scenario, and that it should be avoided. There just needs to be more options available to deal with characters who choose to be antagonistic so that RPly people are able to truly produce a resolution.

 

I should explain, it isn't always vague but there are times that it can be which is why I said it. Best case scenario is where you are intending to go fight someone and he ends up killing you, you obviously forget that you went to fight him and that is that. However there are situations where you wake up and want to go to a city, on the way there you have some contact with some friends and talk with them, you then continue on your way but a bandit kills you. Now, do you simply forget the bit from leaving your friends to dying or is it further, since it states the lead up to the role play then wouldn't logic dictate you forget the whole day? Considering you woke up to go to the city and the events led up to your role play death. 

[Jistuma 1996]

However there are situations where you wake up and want to go to a city, on the way there you have some contact with some friends and talk with them, you then continue on your way but a bandit kills you. Now, do you simply forget the bit from leaving your friends to dying or is it further, since it states the lead up to the role play then wouldn't logic dictate you forget the whole day? Considering you woke up to go to the city and the events led up to your role play death. 

The roleplay of dying to bandits on the road is... just encontering the bandits and dying (enless they were trying specifically to target you to make you stop from going into the town.) The events leading to finding the bandits and dying, wasn't going to a town, it was walking on the road. If you were heading to another town that needs the same road, you would still get killed. This just means that which town you were going to, doesn't matter. In the end, the character would last remember wanting to go to X town, thought the trip itself would be forgotten.

[Cjmate 1270]

Everyone must remember that the villain has their own role play too. One thing that I've always disagreed upon is that the villain is here to give you entertaining role play and have believed that everyone is here to give each and everyone of us entertaining role play. Unfortunately there comes times where a player needs or wants to kill you and the role play that they have given you, is more for their advancement not yours. 

 

I do agree that killing should be a last resort on a one on one sort of role play situation, I also believe that forgetting everything that led up to your death is vague and some sort of timer should be put onto it. 

 

Interesting read, I don't agree with some parts and posts but that's life, nice thread.

You will be shocked and awed by the amount of people who kill people just to kill people, because they want to kill people. This ranges from people who simply do not like other people ooc, to killing people who are just edgy, to killing people because they just belong to a settlement. The later being the more acceptable. I remember a lot of people who killed each other because of ooc vendettas, usually because they got a friend banned or the banned player is running an an alt and harassing the people that got them banned.

 

This applies to anything VA in general. I stole about a dozen anvils from Dwarves, Salvus, and the Graymanes. My character wasn't a thief, he wasn't poor, and he wasn't starving. I just knew I could smelt it into iron bars and a GM would give me the iron equivalent. I wanted to do it ooc, so I did it.

 

I am not saying this is necessarily good or bad, but the assertion that people do things to further their characters is, more often than not, false. People do what makes them happy ooc, not what furthers their goals. Those that do further their ic goals, kudos to them, are likely doing it because they enjoy progression. Some people just don't give two damns about that. And in short before I get a response, I am not speaking ill of how anyone carries on their roleplay. Do what makes you happy. I am just saying that it happens, and the notion that it doesn't is narrow. OOC and IC tend to creep into one or another subconsciously, despite best intentions to avoid it.

[Dyrr 137]

As a victim of much villain RP and a villain myself on a couple characters, I strongly agree with this because it develops both your character and the victim's character a **** ton. Whenever I play my villains, I try to create as much roleplay as possible, ensuring it's enjoyable for them as well. I sort of expect the same when roleplaying the victim as well, though that's not always the case.

[Aengoth 2890]

Or could just simplify the situation and remove the rule where you are required to forget the death while keeping the rule that you cannot return to location of death within last 30mins. 

+Meaningful roleplay for both characters
+Less Meta'ing 
+Creates a lasting effect on the relationship between two/more characters.

+etc

Some negative occurrences may arise because of this (Peasant Olaf thinks he is God now because he remembers being revived) however we can't predict every negative outcome.

[VampsWillDie 76]

Or could just simplify the situation and remove the rule where you are required to forget the death while keeping the rule that you cannot return to location of death within last 30mins. 

+Meaningful roleplay for both characters

+Less Meta'ing 

+Creates a lasting effect on the relationship between two/more characters.

+etc

Some negative occurrences may arise because of this (Peasant Olaf thinks he is God now because he remembers being revived) however we can't predict every negative outcome.

Perhaps a chance system. Roll for remembering. :3

 

I too find it rediculous.

 

Scenario:

 

A husband and wife for 5 years get into a fight. The wife kills the husband out of rage. Husband comes back to the house and is okay, having forgot the fight and being attacked by his own wife. They remain together happily ever after!

 

How about...no???

[Ventusyr 233]

Perhaps a chance system. Roll for remembering. :3

 

I too find it rediculous.

 

Scenario:

 

A husband and wife for 5 years get into a fight. The wife kills the husband out of rage. Husband comes back to the house and is okay, having forgot the fight and being attacked by his own wife. They remain together happily ever after!

 

How about...no???

 

For a wide to kill the man she's been happily married to for five years, it must have been some fight.

 

I personally feel that in situations like that, it's fine to remember that you had a fight, but you don't remember how it ended. Or, as someone suggested a while ago, you have an inexplicable aversion/discomfort around her or the area, so you avoid it.

 

The whole point of this thread, however, is that you shouldn't kill people cause it erases your memory. Changing the forget rule won't work because then people would just hunt down those that killed them and killing would be even less of a big deal than it already is. No, memory loss is the best way to go.

 

I, for one, plus this to infinity. I have had good roleplay when I was killed, but it sucks cause Hesh was never able to remember it :/

[Lyuin 65]

I agree with this ^_^

Though I do wonder: I've seen situations where characters have actually tried to hunt their killer down because: 'Their friend told them they were killed by said person.'

 

Is that a valid reason? I mean, even with the knowledge of monk revival, would many folk attempt such extreme revenge based on a few words?