I'm training as an actor, and one of the many things I been taught is to make strong, active choices. When onstage or screen, you make clear, and specific about what you're doing, the audience will connect to the story better, because they don't have to work to understand the story.

This should be applied to individualized roleplaying, and to an extent, organizational roleplaying in Achaea.

1. Give your character 'super' objective: What does your your character want more than anything in the world? Make your objective specific. While it doesn't have to be attainable, it should be somewhat sensible. If your objective is to 'Ascend to the Pantheon of the Gods' you, as a player (I don't know if the ban of ascensions is IC info or not) know that it's not possible, but your character does not, and he should go after it with all of his ability... because that's what he wants more than anything. A goal like, 'I want to PK the whole world' isn't a good goal, because it's not attainable (the world is constantly growing and expanding) and it's not specific. The more specific your super objective is, the easier it is for you as a player to make decisions leading towards that goal.

2. Make sure all of your actions lead towards obtaining your super-objective. Okay, so this is something you want more than anything in the world. So even if you're resting to regain your energy, you should be resting to regain your energy so that you can continue towards your goal when the rest is over.

3. Commit: Whatever you decide that your goal is, commit to it. Unless something comes up that causes you to change your objective for some reason (this shouldn't be something that happens often), do not stray from doing everything in your power to achieve that goal.

In the case of organizations, this could helpful in involving your organizations in Achaea's Story as well. Mhaldor and Shallam (Rather, Evil and Good) already something to start with: Mhaldor wishes to advance sentient life to it's strongest possible manifestation (or so I think). Shallam wishes to create a world where there is no opposition to peace and growth (again, a conjecture). That gives characters in these organizations... and the organizations themselves directions in which to start.

Cyrene, Ashtan, and Hashan don't have very strong goals... or perhaps they don't have a clear sense as to what their goals are.

I'd say Cyrene, for example has the goal to: Live in Peace and harmony with each other. But that's not very specific. And to "live" is a very passive choice. Does Cyrene want to create something? Does Cyrene want to defend something?

Ashtan and Hashan I have no clue about.

There is more to this, but I just lost it. I think it was when I started on Ashtan. For now, please share your questions, comments, concerns, etc.

[quote name='Talesinger' date='Jul 8 2009, 01:15 PM' post='1147155']
I'm training as an actor, and one of the many things I been taught is to make strong, active choices. When onstage or screen, you make clear, and specific about what you're doing, the audience will connect to the story better, because they don't have to work to understand the story.

All the points you make about roleplaying and defining your character is excellent. I think it also goes as far to be true to character development.

Also part of a good storyline comes with character development. Throughout the attaining of ones goals there are bound to be trials and tribulations and a sense of growth for ones character.

Just my thought

Wow, I absolutely adored reading that. In the LARP that I go to, a majority of the players/staff are actually theater majors and actors so I hear things like this often. Never really fails to have a good reminder, thank you.

As for adding any comments, I can say that besides what you've written...well, besides setting following goals and building layers to your character, sometimes one of the best and hardest things to do is simply know when it's time to let go.

I mean, it could be very much within a character's personality to never give up, but I mean as an active decision from the player to simply walk away from a character and let them be.

/startramble

Example, someone I roleplay with at my larp realized that she really only had two reasonable decisions left to her character at the last minute, practically. Since she was on sojourn (her last life), she could have stayed in the town and changed her goals to better suit those whom she'd have to beg for protection. Would have saved her, no doubt. They could have helped her out but then she'd have to essentially change alignment.

In the end, she walked away having left the town entirely to go join the court of a lich king that she'd already sworn fealty to. Big sacrifice on her part since she can no longer play the character anymore and she'd sunk well over $2000+ total into the game from entrance cost and costuming and weapons. Not to mention the time. She'd been playing for close to six years.

It just suit the character. Sometimes, you have to let them do what they want even if you (the player/actor) really don't want them to go in that direction.

/endramble

In his later years. I turned the concept of Duty into a very very major part of Goryllin. And I think that can been and rub off on people who connect with him. As well as his bardics entries. It does take some heavy handed things to drive points home sometimes, but it also allows for said things and grants you fluidity of movement since people can see something and agree that its matching your goal and thus understand.

Firstly, I'd like to point out a common misconception. Shallam's goal being peace and growth is exactly why Shallam sucks. It -should- be militant Good for the destruction of Chaos, Darkness and Evil. /rant

On topic, I'm not quite sure I agree that a character should be about goal setting but I think that can help create the personality of the character. Rianara hasn't had much of a goal since she was 36 to be honest, as she reached her only goal by that age. I didn't really weave another goal for her to be honest and now it's become part of her personality to be helpful but lazy.

The third comment about committing I agree completely. People should decide upon their actions based upon how their character would react. To be honest, I roleplayed backwards when I started out. Whatever I wanted OOCly was what Rianara went for in game. It creates a very poorly constructed character and I regret it. But now, I realize I have to commit to what I created her to be, regardless of my irritation with how I originally created her. Rianara should be Rianara.

I think lack of commitment is one of the biggest obstacles to good RP. We're people playing a game and it becomes difficult to make decisions we -know- will suck in game. And because of that fact, we break RP. Few people actually do commit to that character even when the - hits the fan but I think if we did, then there would be more enriching RP in Achaea as a whole.

Right, but destroying Evil/Chaos/Oppression is a means to an end... what happens when they destroy evil? Whatever that is, is their super objective.
And ALL of shallam shouldn't be militant. Paladins, yes. Sentaari, probably. Priests, no. Dawnies, probably.

The whole happening when destroying evil will be to further the following of good deities.

And as far as the words I bolded....Dawnies are probably the most militant house in Shallam at the moment. By their philosophy, they should be among the most actively 'fighting' houses considering the fewer restrictions to behavior than Paladins have to follow (Honour and whatnot).

No, Priests should be more adamantly and violently against Chaos than anyone, including the Templars. The Templars were just the muscle behind the Priest's persecution. The Priests were the rabid RAWR CHAOS folk.

edit: For example, the quintessential priest and paladin pairing - Dawn and Gladius.

Agreed. To me, the only possibly passive houses of Shallam should be Sentaari or Crystalline. But it's rationale like Talesinger brings up that keeps Shallam losing (not judging, just saying it's quite common and has a negative affect). People associate priests/good with passiveness and peace. Therefore, that's what kind of players get attracted to Shallam, people that don't care for combat in Achaea. It's unfortunate. Shallam should be a leetle bit more like the Qashar and we'd be good.

Well, no. Qashar's idea of roleplay is sophomoric at best and continuing in their vein is only going to ensure no one gives them any credibility. The Anointed would be more appropriate a rolemodel.

Meh, I hate that people get pissed off at that being a reasonable goal for Shallam. All you have to say is "For there to be peace, we must eliminate those that would attack us. For there to be growth, we must eliminate all obstacles to growth." If Shallam sucks for that reason for you, then you have only yourself to blame for it.

The differences between the two ideals of Good make me think something like Qashar is actually a step in the right direction. Having the militant faction of Shallam that isn't imposed on by the peaceful types could be really interesting. Qashar needs to start formulating actual objectives and a clear purpose then committing to them fully. I'd love to see it go from just "Fighters for Good Clan" to being an influential element in Achaea roleplaying. Let's face it, Shallam RP can be painfully boring sometimes. I want to see something that's a little more Machiavellian to spice things up. I thought that Silas had the oppourtunity to do this when he was made Caliph, but nothing happened. I have no idea what Quoren's objectives are. It might be too much to ask to see Shallam turn up the heat, but the concept seems much more feasible for something like Qashar. I hope Ovid doesn't succumb to people attacking him on the OOC level, and the admins not seeing the opportunity he presents for some fun conflict. I hope he really makes something of Qashar, and I can stop being bored out of my mind.

In regards to the Crystalline house, I don't think elementalists are passive by their nature. Jaiko trying through example and teaching to make the house more involved in conflict.

Heh, all of this talk about Ovids clan. Anyone remember the Angela? And the 5000 other combat clans that shallam/church and etc have had. All doomed to eventual failure as the great spark that ignited and started them gets battered by the very citizens suppose to protect, and then one or two leaders quit or go dormant and the clan fades into nothingness. Not saying its an instant effect, but just about every single one of them has done the same thing. Even the one that Silas and Rho started hit the same brick wall.

I think Ovid is a lot more headstrong and willing to take things to another level than most. I respect his choices, and I'm going to oppose them on a roleplaying level but on an OOC level I think what he's doing is great, it might actually lead to an eventual equilibrium between the good factions and the chaotic and evil factions.

They won't destroy Evil, just like Evil won't destroy them. Not being militant because you may destroy evil sounds like a pretty crap reason to not be militant.

What?

IC, people believe that evil can be destroyed, and vice versa. The whole point is that you shouldn't be militant for the sake of being militant. You shouldn't want to destroy your enemies simply for the sake of it. There should be some reason behind it, whether it be to create a peaceful world where evil doesn't exist, or to sate your bloodlust because it makes you feel good on the inside (not a very strong example, but it's on the opposite end of the spectrum).

I'm not saying anyone should be militant for the sake of being militant. What I'm saying is that destroying evil isn't a means to an end nor is it an end simply because it's not possible. You can fight evil ICly with the hopes of destroying it, but you should keep in mind OOCly during the course of your character's life that ridding the world of evil isn't going to happen, so having a super objective for your character beyond that goal is a little nonsensical within the realm of Achaea.

It just makes no sense to me that Shallam would avoid being militant out of fear that it may actually defeat its enemies and not know what to do afterwards. There's no real valid RP basis for that.

No one at any time suggested that Shallam would at any time avoid being militant out of fear that it may actually defeat it's enemies.

Shallam should move forward with the idea that they can defeat their enemies, and work towards that goal militantly. Even if it's not OOCLY possible, because individual characters within the game don't know that.

I'm all for the idea that Shallam should try to move forward against their enemies, but unless they cut the chaff that is Qashar and the, frankly, imbecilic players that comprise its membership, it's going to continue to flounder in ignominy and ill repute. Scrap Qashar and start again with people worth it. Nothing worthwhile can possibly come from that clan with its current leadership and membership. Get some reasonable responsible roleplayers to represent Shallam combatively. Otherwise, don't bother.

So, Shallam needs the Inquisition (purging itself from heretics, that is, those who misinterpret Good), followed by Crusades (purging the world from heathen)? First they'd need a set of dogmas (canon, they already have that) - that must not be questioned or individually (mis)interpreted.

But if Shallam is, or wants to be a theocracy, how come it's secular rule (Shallam) is separated from religious leadership (Church)?

Not to confuse the word 'heretic' with Mhaldorian usage. When Mhaldorians say 'heretics' they mean 'heathen'.

The problem with that is that our most set-in-stone current dogma (the new Codex) appears to be meant for individual interpretation.

I don't like piking, and because it is available to everyone and widely used by people of all different Achaean backgrounds, it's not really relevant to this situation. CYRENE pikes people.

I have to admit...that always made me raise an eyebrow.

That's very disappointing. Of course modern individualism will translate into the game. You can't have medieval practices and ideology people often want to see, if citizens think in context of 21st century. Individual interpretation of dogma is contradictio in adjecto.

I pike some people just to get the head out of my inventory. And to say, so and so was an idiot and got in my way.

I eat heads.

Now you just hand them to me to deal with. Like I know what to do with them. So I just pike them when I feel like it. Or just let them decay

Give them to Boz, I'll throw them at people for pranks.

Miagorme used to bring me heads as a token of affection long ago. I never knew what to do with them, so I would sneak down to CC and feed them to Chomps; but after a while it got so hilarious that I was rolling with laughter every time I got a new one. There's something a little strange with a meek, shy priestess typing 'give head to humgii' over and over....

My point is that for the general population, setting goals for your character that are outside the OOC limits of the game don't help to create and sustain believable RP.

Think as the character, not as an actor. Using acting techniques may work in a small group such as a LARP or a D&D game, but in something as large in scale as Achaea, it will cause a degeneration into dramaqueen-type tendencies.

Larpers I know are encouraged to think like the character, not as an actor. Which is possibly why I keep dying heroically to demons.. but there ya go!

Charging into a battles where I know I'll die is one of my specialties.

I suppose it's a good thing that Mardosi's an actor...

Though I don't really appreciate the insinuation that actors = drama queens.

"Roleplaying vs Acting" by Altin Gavranovic - some points are also valid for MUDs.

Link: http://www.vurt.net/articles/style.shtml

Not surprisingly, Talesinger, most of the most serious and nondramatic (off stage, I mean) people I know are actors. So...I have to agree with you on that.

Still doesn't mean that a good actor is a good roleplayer.

In my opinion(which most of you probably think means jack), is acting != roleplaying.

This Article is mis-informed and insulting.

There are many different methods to acting, and the scenarios described are based on ill-conceived misconceptions and shortsighted views.

Actors and Roleplayers alike are both responsible for creating a story. Good actors know that what was described in the article takes away from the other people who are telling the story: and when the story becomes about you, and you make your peers look bad... or make yourself look like an idiot, people lose interest in the story.

Now, I understand that there isn't a 100% similarity between roleplaying and actors, and there are a few things that I left out of my original post for just that reason. And I also agree that you shouldn't try to -act- while roleplaying. But you can apply some of the character-building techniques found in acting to roleplaying... but that's about it.

I also agree that the article doesn't have much to do with a difference between acting and roleplaying, it's basically just saying to remember that you're playing a game, and fun comes before realism.

Am I the only one immature enough to giggle at that?

Yep.

Dammit. You just set off my 'cheeks twitching involuntary in response to restrained laughing' reflex!

In regard to that article posted: I think it would be an amazing - and gutsy - RP move if a character calmly killed another because the injured character would slow the group down. That sort of devotion to character is definitely meritorious - though, as someone said, it should be tempered with an acknowledgement that this is a game.

I don't know, entirely, that the "zomg fun" angle should be the primary, naturally. Some people find it thrilling mainly to be roleplaying, I'd imagine, and the good comes with the bad in those cases (or the good comes -from- the bad, in some cases, like Katia's leprosy).

Additionally, I'm not sure how advantageous it is to have a character's motivations and such written out straightaway, insofar as the most you'll be doing at first is levelling/learning skills/etc. I've met a few novices who have some sort of interesting character traits that didn't become a grotesque representation of what a character should be, but only a few. Having a healthy disdain for Chaos/Evil/Darkness is fine and dandy for a Priest/Paladin to have, but I'm a firm believer in developing those IC motivations, well, ICly. From what I've seen, coming in with a clear set of goals, etc., is likely to stifle what could be otherwise interesting RP development.

That sounds like a great idea, I have trouble role-playing my character all the time. It seems difficult to come up with a goal any thoughts.

We've wandered off the topic of militant good, but have any of these Anointed knock-offs ever tried to play into the Spider-Man complex? Y'know, from the start, while recruiting, acknowledge that you're going to be hated by the very people you protect, that you will have few places of refuge and even fewer allies, that we may never in our lifetime ever be able to do more than contain the damage that's been done and set the stage for future generations to set right what went wrong, that your life, in short, will be directed by Stan Lee, but we must do it anyway because it's the Right Thing To Do™.

Never really set any grand motivation for my character, really.

I just had a vague outline of where I wanted to go with him. From there it became an organic process: Through IC interaction, hardships, and so on, I was able to bring my character to the places he needed to be. And fortunately it all worked pretty well, as my character has completed the original arc I'd wanted. From there, I've new goals for him and a new character arc that will take him to the next stage.

And about the piking ofheads: I've always wondered- Why pike the heads of enemies in front of your own city? Wouldn't it be more awesome to pike enemies' heads outside their cities, if only for the "F*** you!" factor? I'll have to do that sometime...

Some do it for that factor, yes. Others do it to say, "This is what happens to those that mess with Ashtan/Cyrene/Eleusis/Hashan/Mhaldor/Shallam.