Are hard-pk phylacteries a good system?

[PrimnyaQuorum 3999]

1 minute ago, King_Kunuk said:

>I never asked them once oocly. I learned about which character was planned to be res and I did what my treacherous scheming character would do in rp. Others did ooc ask him and I was informed irp and irp the character took advantage of it by offering to help in rp

 

Don't inflate ooc with RP schemes to somehow be the same. Stop speaking about this as though you know exactly what happened word for word without actually consulting or asking the other side of this 'conflict' that occured.

if someone feels it was so bad that they actually made a report instead of coping to their friendgroup, that’s not a good look dude. Nevermind I’ve had like a plethora of people tell me you go around popping/planning to pop people you beat up during darkspawn rp - nevermind you sent ST a list of materials you wanted as a participation reward for a event you basically metagamed through.

 

there is a basic level of courtesy that for some reason is not offered to other people and it doesn’t take a genius to read the report and get a idea about the situation without talking to anyone. 

[NightcastorKitty 2780]

11 minutes ago, PrimnyaQuorum said:

Also it just feels odd to respond to someone starting a discussion “lol erm didn’t you apply for this CA? Why are you discussing it?”

 

I would've used more color language and words along with memes and gifs if I was making it a joke. But what I ask is a legitimate question because time and time again I've seen this over the years. Some have died and no one talks about it. Others have pk died and raise a huge conflict about it. And then you get people saying it's awful beyond reason to pk someone. For whatever reason. As if betrayal, murder, and conflict aren't a thing. Some clearly hate PK clauses. So I'm asking then. Why bother getting a creature with PK clauses, saying yes I agree to the question that you follow the pk clauses of said character. 

 

Then later on are upset you fell victim to the PK clause? This isn't tied to the most recent situation honestly. It's a question that truly boggles my mind. Why place yourself in a situation you don't like and then get upset if something happens. That's my take really. 

[PCSwift 1422]

I think I’d like to comment about the PK system at large. I don’t actually think it’s a problem, and leads to MUCH more meaningful ROLEPLAY, WHEN USED APPROPRIATELY. I believe as it stands it’s good, but it does need constant supervision and oversight to prevent bad actors taking advantage and subverting roleplay standards.

[Agy 756]

Whilst I have very little to no experience on the matter of Necros, It should be stated that the vast majority of people that do get the MA do so for presumably a lot of reasons that are in no way related to the "PK-Clause" or any other issues the MA may harbour. 

 

And if the answer to such issues is to simply never be dumb enough to get into any lore pieces that are plagued with all sorts of issues to begin with... 
Then nobody will infact want to play that lore piece. Necromancy is a clearly aged and issue-riddled piece from what I've seen with my own eyes.
Even during the Magic's "Peak" with the deadmen, with who I would regularly interact, I only ever saw or heard of 2 other actually active Necromancers other than Gashadokuro as opposed to the dozens of Ghouls, Naz, Demons and even Corrupted Azdrazi that I saw with my very own eyes... Of which necromancers, all were liches or infact became liches during said period. Suffice to say, I think a lot of people are following this kind of "advice".

[LordCrowe 173]

16 minutes ago, NightcastorKitty said:

 

I would've used more color language and words along with memes and gifs if I was making it a joke. But what I ask is a legitimate question because time and time again I've seen this over the years. Some have died and no one talks about it. Others have pk died and raise a huge conflict about it. And then you get people saying it's awful beyond reason to pk someone. For whatever reason. As if betrayal, murder, and conflict aren't a thing. Some clearly hate PK clauses. So I'm asking then. Why bother getting a creature with PK clauses, saying yes I agree to the question that you follow the pk clauses of said character. 

 

Then later on are upset you fell victim to the PK clause? This isn't tied to the most recent situation honestly. It's a question that truly boggles my mind. Why place yourself in a situation you don't like and then get upset if something happens. That's my take really. 

Now admittedly I haven't been playing CA's for that long in the grand scheme of things, especially compared to some of the people here, so feel free to take what I say with a grain of salt.

Truth is, people DON'T just look at the PK Clause when deciding to play a CA, they look at the entire CA and weigh the risks. Sometimes those risks are seem only borderline acceptable, like for example when I ascended my ghoul I had serious reservations about going Pale Knight instead of Darkstalker because Pale Knight's could be effectively force PK'd and Darkstalkers couldn't, but I eventually went Pale Knight after reassurances from the rest of my group.

It is absolutely within people's right to complain about an unfair mechanic even after they got the CA, just because I accepted the risks in return for getting all the cool stuff doesn't mean I don't have opinions about those risks, this isn't politics, don't gatekeep people based on if they voted or not or whatever.

Frankly, any system that allows someone else to force PK you without ever actually seeing your character face to face is a bad system.



 

[Frostdrop1 1843]

PK clauses in general are not bad. Every mechanic on the server should aid narrative and PK-clauses should be used to create meaningful deaths. There is no such thing as a forced PK; however, I see them as a little bit like a risk in surgery but for leisure instead. Do you want the surgery that will make your rp better? Yes. Do you want the side effect? Not really. Do you still want the surgery? Yes, obviously. You have to take the bad with the rest; that doesn't mean you need to enjoy it. PK-clauses perhaps get the biggest highlight of this mindset but I'm sure there's lots of elements of MA/FA/CA lore that people just kind of get along and deal with without complaint.

Are PK-clauses conducive to rp? Sometimes. I've never had a character on a PK clause and they've always weighed heavily when I've considered if I did want that ability, so it's often a barrier and probably functioning as intended. However, I've certainly interacted with them and looking at the situation largely as an outsider PK-clauses often just seem unfair since one side of a conflict gets an ultimate, powerful tool to kill their enemy and the other side gets nothing but people probably not PKing no matter how hard they scheme. Could this work out in good faith? Sure. Will it? Probably not. Does this make them bad? No. But the server does almost nothing to enforce that PK-clauses come into effect under good faith basis pre-emptively aside from pray and hope. Do I care as an outsider if that player was under a PK-clause when they posted a PK/narrative post? Not really. Have I ever noticed if it made the posts of narratively more enjoyable? Not really, beyond having a group go to smash whatever made Cloudbreaker tick. I don't even know the details, I just know something was smashed and a little group got to do it and enjoy that, which made something cool. However, this also wasn't even a player.

Now, all the PK-clause systems are different and I think the comments have largely pointed this out in a good way: some are superior and more fit-for-purpose than others. The obvious solution is just to update the rubbish ones the the standard of the rest where they function more akin to a warning or grant the player themselves more control. These PK-clauses inherently mitigate the worst elements of having a PK-clause which acts as a great buffer against poor rp and lets everyone feel like they've got control which is a key element of having fun.

What happened to spark this situation and discussion was a rubbish PK clause. The villain character did scheme, which is perfectly acceptable, but ultimately not a lot of roleplay was provided to to justify the PK clause. It was clearly unbalanced in terms of give-and-take and good faith, which are vague ideas that different people have different ideas about on the server. Achieving this give-and-take and good faith in my experience often relies on people being communicative to make sure people are having fun. The character really just wanted the resource, which is fair - the situation just didn't play out fairly. Ironically, because of a lack of communication. This wasn't really a fault by person beyond being inconsiderate. 

Thus, the PK-clause here was an enabler of poor rp and did not provide the buffer other PK-clauses tend to have. This shouldn't be the case. Therefore, the clause should be amended and updated to be in line with the quality of others. I like what @lemonkeproposed because its got a lot of opportunity to have development but it would clearly also take a lot of thought yet. It certainly isn't the only plausible solution though. 

 

[Security_ 2287]

If you don't want a force PK, don't play or accept a CA that has a force PK system. Nobody is forced to accept becoming a draugar or wight.

 

Firstly, addressing that it encourages metaplay: I have never really seen, nor experienced, a draugar or wight asking a friend to hide it in a nation or vassal OOCly. Typically, phylacteries have always been put in hidden parts of lairs, and specifically for draugars the phylactery has to be accessible by said undead, since that's where they respawn (this was to prevent hiding it behind 3 iron doors away from the draugar.) I will say there were (and maybe are, idk I don't keep up) some necromancers that simply ignored this, but it is always up to the CA to read their lore, and let ST know when rules are being broken. Can't complain if you never did anything to fix it. Otherwise, I don't think there's much metaplay at all with phylacteries - they're made, and it's fully up to the necromancer coven / creator to move and hide their evil gem. It requires tact, thinking it through, and communication IRP, typically you don't have much OOC communication surrounding a phylactery besides "where'd you put it so I can respawn there" and thereafter getting access and keys.

 

This also is vastly better than old phylacteries. Physical builds require that the soul-harboring vessel can be seen, that ANYONE can interact with them. Old phylacs were just items in your hand, and were hidden in chests, never to be seen except when on the owner's terms - THAT was anti-rp.

 

As for your argument of wanting to take a break, perhaps getting banned, or otherwise leaving the server, that is completely fine. Being evil is hard on LotC, it's a constant balancing act of wanting to enjoy and flush out your character whilst also being one of the main centers of conflict for high fantasy EVIL. You are the drive behind holy mages wanting to act like holy mages, riding the fine line between a WoW raid boss that is a soulless loot piñata that jaded old heads will 2 emote 'smash head', and being far too invested in self-preservation and making every interaction feel like your enemies are wasting their time going against an endless nothing-story. 

That being said, anyone who plays a character with a phylactery must accept that people can PK them. You can get banned, decide to take a break, get mad and smash it yourself, yet there are consequences to accepting the CA, and deciding to play it. It isn't anti-RP, it's a story, it drives the story to be a creature that can actually be completely removed from the world. I prefer things that are given otherworldly power, an edge over the common player to have negative effects - especially when playing an inherent villain that is there to make a story. If you don't want to have the chance getting PKed while taking a vacation, play a ghoul, darkstalker, archlich, azdrazi, unanchored ghost, paleknight, etc.

 

Plenty of dark mages and CAs will get killed and just respawn an hour later to keep up whatever evil plan they were doing. In my opinion, it's more anti-rp when I kill a mystic and I see them respawn a week later as the death did literally nothing - let there be consequences. You undertake consequences when you supercharge your character with magics, you can't cherish your character's vitality while simultaneously diminishing other character's.

[PrimnyaQuorum 3999]

1 hour ago, NightcastorKitty said:

 

I would've used more color language and words along with memes and gifs if I was making it a joke. But what I ask is a legitimate question because time and time again I've seen this over the years. Some have died and no one talks about it. Others have pk died and raise a huge conflict about it. And then you get people saying it's awful beyond reason to pk someone. For whatever reason. As if betrayal, murder, and conflict aren't a thing. Some clearly hate PK clauses. So I'm asking then. Why bother getting a creature with PK clauses, saying yes I agree to the question that you follow the pk clauses of said character. 

 

Then later on are upset you fell victim to the PK clause? This isn't tied to the most recent situation honestly. It's a question that truly boggles my mind. Why place yourself in a situation you don't like and then get upset if something happens. That's my take really. 

fair enough. I think it’s a nuanced issue at core:

 

Anyone on LoTC (hopefully) will agree that agreeing to any MA/FA/CA is a 2-way deal between that player and staff. The player agrees to be held to a “higher standard” of roleplay, to read and fairly present their lore and redlines, to be subject to soft/Hard PN clauses and interacts, and so forth - and this is the big part - so long as staff are willing to preserve the integrity of that MA/FA/CA.

 

If, through a chain of RP or just because I fought the wrong naz, a hit squad jumped me and used the banishment rite - cool. I may have a OOC reaction but RP is RP

 

if, however, those same players instead took a normal character, manipulated both the player and character OOCly and ICly into making a inferi just to banish and PK them - most people agree that’s just not good RP (nevermind violating a redline of inferi.) the point of CAs is not to be leverage as a tool to force a PK onto someone, but to kinda give them a weakness (the ability to be killed forever) in exchange for unique mechanics and interactions.

 

so in this fictional incident, I would expect ST to understand A) this was a low effort, bad faith way to force PK someone they otherwise couldn’t and B) a use of lore not to promote a narrative, but get rid of someone they don’t like, and thus act respectively to promote the integrity of the lore as a narrative option, not a force PK  because you didn’t like him in Oren or whatever else OOC grudges LoTCers are famous for holding and injecting into RP.

 

frankly at its simplest a PK Clause is a green light to do whatever horrible bad faith/metaplay RP you want against someone else. Players expect ST, the people enforcing these PKs in situations where all is well, to also intervene when it’s obviously subpar. That’s why I’d hope

you’d see some PKs fly by without care and others erupt into this kind of discourse l.

 

ofc I expect some ST will correct me if this is a 1 sided matter where they will PK leave you but leave you with the corporate help line (left on read for long enough that they can claim nothing can be done anymore) if someone does subpar RP. I don’t think it’s a giant hurdle to say we can place value on RP being good over forcing some dude to PK just because someone did a mandatory 3 emotes.

[Hawkeye_Gough 624]

Hi everybody! This is a topic that I have a lot of thoughts on, yet simultaneously NEVER know what to say when it comes up. I play a Pale Lord, who has a rather harsh soft/hard pk system. Obviously I'd love if it was easier on me, but I think maybe the story of how I decided to play this character can provide some insight?

 

 

This was my first character since joining back on lotc, and he was a COMPLETE normie Haenser. Literally all I did for the first few months was drink in the square and play pranks with my ic/ooc friends. Nothing could have pked me if I didn't want it to, and I wasn't super invested in anything to lead me to ever want that.

 

Eventually I got roped up icly with mystics and spycraft and scheming, and I had a great time. At this point I had no MA (er maybe I think I had T1 bardmancy that I never trained to level up lol) or FA nonsense. I was getting to do evil stuff, and I still took zero risk to my character. I got up to some stuff, joined an event, watched people, all that jazz.

 

Eventually I learned oocly from the group about Eidola, and was offered the opportunity to play one. It was explained to me that I was risking a hard pk, but I REALLY wanted to shift into a villainous stone knight. For the first little while my solution was to make a new descendant to play on, and **** around on my paleknight other times. I risked an uncurable pk because, at the time, the character wasn't important enough for the risk to be a big deal. This was my first opportunity to back out. I could have still done all the same stuff until I got old and died irp, or until I felt my story was done. But the new direction was worth the risk I took on. The synod didn't NEED me as a paleknight, and the stakes were low.

 

Skip a little while, and I first started hearing about the opportunity to make a Pale Lord. Not a lot of knights were played, and the Synod felt its more marshall legion needed a fitting leader + a powerful guy. From an irp standpoint, this was more necessary. The legion didn't really function without a captain, and nothing was really better suited, but becoming a Lord harshens your PK clause a lot. The Lord, though, didn't HAVE to be me. This was my second chance to back out, and it's a very important thing to consider. Yes, there are sometimes CAs that are very important for a group to function as it's meant to. But that doesn't mean I had to play that CA. Other people could've, if they were willing to take the risk.

 

At this point I was very invested in villainy and my story, and I wanted the power and leadership of a Lord. I was dead-set on earning a boost, even though it would make every death more impactful and increase the risk I'd be lost forever. I thought (and still think) that even though I'll someday be exploded, the rp I'm creating is more than worth that inevitability.

 

That's the important stuff but to wrap up the story, I'm a palelord now and everybody loves me <3

 

 

 

That's a lot of words, sorry!! But here's the key takeaway:

 

YES. Some phylactery-style PK clauses (namely wight and draugur where it's instant and unrecoverable and doesn't require crp) are very harsh. Maybe they could be less harsh, I'll think on some ideas for that.

YES. Especially in the case of Wights, it's hard for mysticism en masse to function without any.

 

NO, YOU (whoever's reading this) don't have to play that Wight. If someone is willing to risk everything on the whim of a Templar, they can play it. 

 

Because of that, I do think that ****some**** level of PK clause for such powerful and important characters is necessary and impactful. If I never have to pk my pale lord, I probably never will. The same can certainly be said for some wights. Removing the clause entirely or making it infinitely recoverable will ensure that there is no progress for either side. Ever.

 

 

 

 

Sorry everybody I know this is already a lot of words... But I want to add maybe a hypothesis?

 

I think that like the masses of normie (I use that term endearingly) players who aren't chasing powerful CAs or MAs or MArts should be immune to pks outside of hard pk events. They haven't signed up for extra risk and the lore level of storytelling doesn't rely on them in the same way.

 

I do think however, that super-charged ultra CAs like mine, and wights and azdrazi, BUT ALSO very powerful good guy characters, should have some level of PK clause. Heavy highs and lows make for great storytelling. Someday, somebody (iris1612 probably) is going to hard pk me. Nothing I can do about it. But the rp will be AWESOME, and there will be a huge PK post with a million upvotes, and people will remember my character as a villain overcome through terrifying hard work. That's great rp for me, and it's worth the risk (I hesitate to even call it risk. Someday it WILL happen). I'd just like, as @JustMeMorgandescribed, if it wasn't so one-way. I'd love if we could create those opportunities for you all and create a bit of a give and take.

 

Thanks for listening to me ramble. <3 lmk if I'm stupid and wrong ^^

[wowj 9747]

2 hours ago, PrimnyaQuorum said:

I can’t recall the last time I heard of a Azdrazi being PK’d through the immaculate blade or running out of units

Azdrazi Deepstate makes it so that Azdrazi cannot be pked, if you destroy the azdrazi's phylactery and then kill the azdrazi, they can just remake the phylactery and revive them

1 billion carbarum events to the Azdrazi

[Agy 756]

9 minutes ago, wowj said:

Azdrazi Deepstate makes it so that Azdrazi cannot be pked, if you destroy the azdrazi's phylactery and then kill the azdrazi, they can just remake the phylactery and revive them

1 billion carbarum events to the Azdrazi

I know this is a joke, but this has been something that's been on my mind for a long time; The Naz and the Azdrazi - Arguably two of the most successful MA/CAs that don't have entire nations irply "protecting" them - both entirely lack any manner of overly punishing revival, feeding or straight up just Soft/Hard PK mechanics. We never see an argument for them to get such manner mechanics and it has infact not stopped them in the slightest from being able to produce some utterly wonderful if not some of the best RP I've had the fortune of taking part in.

 

Apparently having your own lore not go out of its way punish its own players for using it, actually helps.

[Xergarok 811]

I can't think of a scenario where my phylactery will be found via 'proper RP', nor do I believe it'll lead to any 'proper RP' (kudos if you don't just smash it but do something interesting with it). I'll just be deleted from the world, likely not having seen it coming. I took my clause because natural RP led my character to become a Wight, not because I felt comfortable with this clause per say. I took the CA because my interests outweighed the clause, not because the clause 'balances' the CA's strength or adds some cool 'edge' to my RP. It gives OOC stress at most. If I just perish while in the prime of my RP I'll be upset like the next person, simple as. Any argument about 'having accepted the clause' changes nothing about this fact; I won't be able to do anything and it seems to add little value overall. It's just a victory point for any would-be enemy. It adds weight and consequence, but I think this is a poor and outdated manner of handling this. Currently it's hidden, if it's found I'm gone. I think it just needs to be more dynamic.

 

In the grand scheme of CA's it seems like the arguments used here are not applied everywhere. Who decides what CA should and shouldn't get (or in case of old lore keep) these clauses? Is it thematic? Balancing? Just curious about others opinions.

 

Despite my view I don't have a hill to die on; clause or no clause. I've just personally seen downsides, that's all.

[HurferDurfer1 2978]

pk's are cool, it does suck when it happens in an anticlimactic way like if a bunch of good guys raid a lair when its empty or something, but thems the breaks. if you get pked go with some dignity

[Security_ 2287]

3 hours ago, Xergarok said:

I can't think of a scenario where my phylactery will be found via 'proper RP', nor do I believe it'll lead to any 'proper RP' (kudos if you don't just smash it but do something interesting with it). I'll just be deleted from the world, likely not having seen it coming. I took my clause because natural RP led my character to become a Wight, not because I felt comfortable with this clause per say. I took the CA because my interests outweighed the clause, not because the clause 'balances' the CA's strength or adds some cool 'edge' to my RP. It gives OOC stress at most. If I just perish while in the prime of my RP I'll be upset like the next person, simple as. Any argument about 'having accepted the clause' changes nothing about this fact; I won't be able to do anything and it seems to add little value overall. It's just a victory point for any would-be enemy. It adds weight and consequence, but I think this is a poor and outdated manner of handling this. Currently it's hidden, if it's found I'm gone. I think it just needs to be more dynamic.

 

In the grand scheme of CA's it seems like the arguments used here are not applied everywhere. Who decides what CA should and shouldn't get (or in case of old lore keep) these clauses? Is it thematic? Balancing? Just curious about others opinions.

 

Despite my view I don't have a hill to die on; clause or no clause. I've just personally seen downsides, that's all.

 

The main addendum I would add, and perhaps should be normal, is that CA's should be capable of defending their own phylactery. I remember years ago that Soul Tree Phylacteries are played by ST, and even if the Tree Lord(lich) isn't there, someone is able to defend it. I'd concede that CA's with Phylacteries should have a clause or otherwise to allow them to protect their phylacteries to prevent low tier break in and smash RP, or otherwise.

[lemonke 6014]

4 hours ago, Security_ said:

 

The main addendum I would add, and perhaps should be normal, is that CA's should be capable of defending their own phylactery. I remember years ago that Soul Tree Phylacteries are played by ST, and even if the Tree Lord(lich) isn't there, someone is able to defend it. I'd concede that CA's with Phylacteries should have a clause or otherwise to allow them to protect their phylacteries to prevent low tier break in and smash RP, or otherwise.

It's something I proposed on the necromancy's rewrite. My thing is stuff like treelord is easily fixable, because they can just replant a tree again. So, why can't wight or the like have a similar mechanic–wherein their phsycaltery defends itself like a soul tree. Idk, It could summon some undead, call forward some entities, conjure curses, and so on.

 

My biggest beef is these pk clause are not interactive enough. I could get online to a weird time where everyone is a sleep and just kill "somebody". Much like breaking into houses when no one is around.

 

Pk clause should also be somewhat understanding. Imagine If you go through a terrible week due to IRL work, want a break and get online on the server in the weekends to roleplay your favorite character and you just get dmed: "Nah, you got pked".

 

Irl>>>mineman rp.

 

Such pk things should be made more comfortable imo. @Agysaid it well in their response to wowj.