LeftwardElk
Lord of Altera
rerail?
Medieval & Fantasy Minecraft Roleplaying
Greetings Explorer, Navigate into the Lobby!
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Be sure to "Get Whitelisted" to join the community on server!
-
Greetings Guest, Welcome to our Medieval Roleplaying Server, HollowWorld! Get Whitelisted Today and join us! Then check out our Starter Guide made just for you.
-
Keep up-to-date on the Server Campaigns!
-
Here's a guide to the Prestige plugin! Read it here.
-
To purchase property at Storm's Landing, Please Click Here!
-
Hey, Guest! Contribute to the Server to keep us Alive!
Character Death and Roleplay Impact
- Thread starter Jak
- Start date
The way I see it is that death is one of several possible conclusions to a character's story. If you die and you're satisfied with how things ended, or the impact you made, then your character can remain dead. Otherwise you might as well have another go to keep your story moving along. If you feel you've reached the end of your character's arc, then death is a choice, or simply retiring them to some quiet epilogue.
CyberChaosV2
Lord of Altera
so it's like an honors system for character storytelling.
The power is in the players' hands to decide when their story ends, making it so that their story didn't die with getting gangrene from a toe being munched off by a rabid dog, but also allows the players to have a character persist after a hardfought battle in which their character died a hero... that way they can be a hero in more battles.
Yeah, definitely like an honor system
BoredBrit
Bored Brit
BoredBritishGuy
Legend
Lets go through this:
I'd say I only saw two people actively call him a boy. Bronn Westergard and Malek. The latter was mostly when he was incapacitated by the Grafjell Zombie storm.
He was more trained than your average Crossroad Mook. He had both Anhalder and Grafjellian soldiers teaching him.
Pft. He was squired to a Kingsguard house. Weapons and armour were no issue.
I'll be sure to make note that he must moon after every woman he meets and bathe in Crusade's Glory. Wait. . .Thats not what makes a warrior. A warrior fights, and I believe Dante fought for Anhald on at least 3 'bigger' occasions.
So now that we've been through why your entire statement's connotations was wrong, can you please reiterate your point in a PM?
Auriel_
Lover
ur the guy who originally derailed it
LeftwardElk
Lord of Altera
A_Z_U_R
Lover
Friosis
Lord of Altera
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Revivals can change when combat rp has a actual system behind it. Right now it's a subjective and flawed system. Made up for by it's lack of consequences.
If we change revivals the long repeated saying of: "just die and revive" won't be valid anymore, which invalides a lot of incentive for someone to consent.
We don't want to see people not consenting commonly, there were big issues the last time someone didn't consent to something. The time before that ended in an actual riot.
If we change revivals the long repeated saying of: "just die and revive" won't be valid anymore, which invalides a lot of incentive for someone to consent.
We don't want to see people not consenting commonly, there were big issues the last time someone didn't consent to something. The time before that ended in an actual riot.
pls
Pan_12Q
Legend
I don't consent to this thread being rerailed thanks
Regardless - this thread wasn't posted as a "change the rulez or riot" sort of thing. This was me putting my point of view (and that of others who had been discussing it) out into public. It's commonly repeated that bitching about things in voice chat isn't going to change anything, and while I wouldn't say we were bitching, I still thought that it applied. If I didn't get this out there, nothing would come of it.
This thread was an appeal to the players to reconsider their position on multiple lives/revivals. Certain characters were raised during this discussion, Raphael Payne and Archaeus Fronte chief among them, that have experienced an awful lot of deaths, for whatever reason, and that the fact these characters keep coming back and back causes a huge lack of impact with regards to death. If this only effected the character in question, there would obviously be no issue, but this is not the case. Repeated revivals, especially if a character is in a position of power/enacting a plan your character wants to stop/any other situation with great effect means that there is very little way to change the wider story of the server through direct conflict, or even your own character's personal story if their foe just keeps coming back with their head re-attached. What do you do? There's no purpose, no point in conflict or combat when you can just come right on back.
I'm going to restate it here - I'm not asking for a rule change here, as much as I think one would benefit the server in this case, instead I'm appealing to players to personally change their position on revival and move towards what I see (and maybe this isn't a shared point of view for all, but it seems to be an opinion held by many) as being a better situation regarding roleplay.
As somewhat of an addendum, earlier this morning, someone stated they had a choice in RP between mutilation and death, and that they chose death - this is ridiculously wrong, from my perspective and results purely from the lack of meaning and finality that death has.
This thread was an appeal to the players to reconsider their position on multiple lives/revivals. Certain characters were raised during this discussion, Raphael Payne and Archaeus Fronte chief among them, that have experienced an awful lot of deaths, for whatever reason, and that the fact these characters keep coming back and back causes a huge lack of impact with regards to death. If this only effected the character in question, there would obviously be no issue, but this is not the case. Repeated revivals, especially if a character is in a position of power/enacting a plan your character wants to stop/any other situation with great effect means that there is very little way to change the wider story of the server through direct conflict, or even your own character's personal story if their foe just keeps coming back with their head re-attached. What do you do? There's no purpose, no point in conflict or combat when you can just come right on back.
I'm going to restate it here - I'm not asking for a rule change here, as much as I think one would benefit the server in this case, instead I'm appealing to players to personally change their position on revival and move towards what I see (and maybe this isn't a shared point of view for all, but it seems to be an opinion held by many) as being a better situation regarding roleplay.
As somewhat of an addendum, earlier this morning, someone stated they had a choice in RP between mutilation and death, and that they chose death - this is ridiculously wrong, from my perspective and results purely from the lack of meaning and finality that death has.
Friosis
Lord of Altera
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Pls.
Naelwyn
Non sum qualis eram
The principal reason why this is not part of the revival system is that it brings OOC subjective judgement into every death, versus right now, all the mechanics to revival are objective, and are not changed by what a specific person processing a revival thinks of a character.
To further this point this is the only way a revival system can be objective. We all have our own views of right and wrong IRL and it becomes even foggier to judge in the strange moral dillemas so common in fantasy. Do we kill the god child who is defintely a child now or risk him becoming an evil god just like Jishrim? What is the morally right choice? Do we judge by Kants stick or something more akin to (I forget the philosopher) but best outcome for the many outweighing the concerns of the few?
So you would have to give staff every single action your character has ever done with motivation and then they have to judge by their stick if they are morally "good". I'm afraid I don't want that and I don't think staff want that as they already get too many bias accusations.
CyberChaosV2
Lord of Altera
You're thinking of John Stuart Mill
JstarGames
Good
Just do it however you want and don't act high and mighty because your character is a one lifer. Not saying that everyone is like that, but still.
Some people just aren't comfortable making their characters one lifers and that should be their personal choice.
Some people just aren't comfortable making their characters one lifers and that should be their personal choice.
I'm not sure how it's an honor system because there's no objective everyone agrees to observe. Every character's story goes differently, and it doesn't make sense for it to be honorable that you end a particular story prematurely because some other group thinks it should end.
CyberChaosV2
Lord of Altera
no, but it's expected for you to end your own story at some point, whereas some people continue t have their characters live on until they either die of old age, or are told "no more rezzes fam." that's what i'm getting out of this thread anyways, since if people killed their characters when they liked, and we assumed their deaths to be adequate for a story ending, this wouldn't be coming up. Like I sai,d that's the best way I can see this as.