I can understand how to view the death of an adventurer in Achaea. We're "touched/chosen by the Gods/fate/whatever" to be special/powerful/etc. We "die" we either take a trip thru Maya's hall, or we get resurrected by some other means.

However, the same scenario plays out for (most) denizens. You kill a Theran villager, a few minutes later *POOF* there he is again, no worse for the wear. It's even more disturbing for a named denizen.

Death being handled this way leads to some strange situations, like the orphans in Shallam and Ashtan. I realize they're part of a quest, but if you're always reborn after you die, why are there orphans? Their parents would simply reappear sometime later.

I realize it's a little bit of a minor issue, but it's an immersion thing to me. It doesn't really make sense to kill off Auntie Maim, then however long later someone else is killing her. I'd just like some sort of IC way to make sense of it all, some philosophy that would explain the discrepancies.

Any thoughts?

Not everyone is reborn. Thera was wiped out and Maya (or was it Sarapis back then? Time tends to get fuzzy for me) didn't resurrect them. The generally accepted (at least that I can tell) is that you're resurrected as long as you've not completed your destiny.

A fuzzy concept, but it does explain everything. Those parents? They completed their destiny. Thera? Was destined to be destroyed. Us? I like to think our destiny is to ascend, which is why no matter what we accomplish, we're still reborn. "Oh, so you're a Dragon HouseLeader that also leads the City? Nah, not fulfilled."

Dammit.

I just don't know about this. What higher destiny does a Theran villager have that Maya would resurrect him/her? Why is it only the parents of the orphans, and a small portion of the rest of the population of the game world who've fulfilled their destiny? There shouldn't really be that high of a percentage of people with some grand destiny that takes many hundreds of years to fulfill.

I see where you're coming from, and it may be about the best answer we'll see. I have hopes that someone else will have more thoughts, but who knows.

I just don't like a concept about something as important as death to be "fuzzy."

Denizens can pray and are returned to life by Maya just like adventurers. Permanent death also exists, for both adventurers and denizens, it's just not very common. As for the orphans, I'm not sure exactly, but it wouldn't be difficult to imagine that one of the hundreds or thousands of citizens of Ashtan/Shallam occasionally die permanently.

There are several theories and ideas about when permanent death occurs, but no strict set of guidelines as far as mortals are concerned.

I'm not sure about the named denizens but for the unnamed ones like Theran villagers wouldn't you just be able to assume that another nameless villager is taking the place of the one that died before?

Yes, but eventually if this were the case, we'd run out of villagers. If all of the villagers in New Thera died permanently every time someone bashes Thera, where do the new villagers come from?

Maybe there are many of denizens that we just don't see as mobiles ingame, but how many would there be living in Thera? A few hundred? A couple thousand at most? How quickly would that number be reduced to zero by bashers?

No, the denizens are resurrected as well as adventurers. I understand from an OOC perspective. We can't kill off all the mobs permanently. There'd be nothing left. But ICly, it just a bit jarring to the immersion.

Why is resurrection jarring to the immersion for denizens, but not adventurers? Sarapis said once that he doesn't consider adventurers and denizens any different from a roleplaying perspective. Any distinction between them is usually OOC.

Also, yes, the vast majority of the population of Sapience doesn't exist as denizens or adventurers, they're just assumed to be there, in the background basically.

Sena has it. There are many people around you don't notice, and adventurers are more important than them. Denizens are generally as important as adventurers, though somewhat less so in that they can die and not be granted life again under certain circumstances.

The basic idea is your life isn't finished, so you're brought back.

See, this is why Katia is preaching about this sort of thing.
Thoth wants your souls!!

To the OP. I have had thoughts about this as well. The reasoning I came up with for myself is that for some people, the life they left behind(or their death) is so painful that they would rather drift the realms as souls than to pray for salvation to live or experience death again. Maybe they eventually dissipate into nothingness or something. Hence the orphans and such. We adventurers don't have the luxury to choose that of course,.. oh wait, do we?

Mathonwy always views it as benevolent intervention on the Great Mother's behalf. She wouldn't -have- to resurrect him, and just because She always has every time he's prayed for salvation doesn't mean She will.

Also, aren't adventurers, by dint of having gone through the Trial, supposed to be different? Therefore, ICly speaking, Maya/Sarapis before Her would probably find that, despite how inconsequential our lives are, the lives of some denizens are even less so, which is why the villagers are allowed to die off. A slight variation would be thinking that denizens don't have much in the way of experience value, and praying requires soul experience or whatever the shorthand term is.

Of course, the case could be made that villager34972 and villager46842 aren't 'technically' the same villagers, but that line of logic sort of unravels when you encounter named denizens, I'd imagine.

ETA: the above is rendered obsolete insofar as I think, as per Katia above, that Thoth's order has the actual, legitimated IC account. I plan on investigating this ICly at my earliest convenience.

Of course villager34972 and villager46842 aren't the same villagers... they both exist at the same time. The unique ID never changes; if you kill a denizen, the corpse carries the same unique ID, and when that denizen later comes back, it still carries the same unique ID.

The trial of rebirth hasn't always existed, a lot of people have been around since before the newbie intro was changed. Loom Island was never explained very well though, so there could have been something similar that could cause a change.

I remember Loom Island.

Good times.

I know, I know, but you see the point - that adventurers are somehow 'different' by virtue of some experience through which they've gone, etc.

Dammit Gorly, you made me remember getting Secrets from Vision there. :<

an excuse to get drunk in a text pub for the first time

I had totally forgotten about Loom...my first character had to go through that. The weird temple or whatever?

I don't remember any temple. There was a bar though, where every new adventurer got a free flagon of ale and was taught how to drink it.

It may have been mead, not ale, I don't remember.

There was that, but I remember having to go somewhere and look around for some hidden exit, that's why they taught you SECRETS in vision.

Yes. That is Azdun. The exact same Azdun that is in the game right now.

Heh, thanks. Just a very faint memory for me...I had forgotten totally about it until now.

Yea where a goblin would start to chase you, and the helpful Paladin would rush to your aid and guide you out.

mmm I remember like it was yesterday, so much better than the trial at the minute.

Yeah, the current one is...lacking. Kinda dull, kinda...I dunno. Too easy, too happy?

I honestly loved getting 30 millions flagons from the bartender at the beginning because I had no idea what I was doing :| Good times.

Also the new newbies don't learn secrets so stupidity doesn't screw them over as hard >( hax

I always thought of death as being a rather big deal. I mean, you might come back, but first off, clearly some portion of the denizen population isn't coming back (hence, orphans), which means the average generation of villagers probably loses about ten percent of their population to adventurer slaughter. On top of that, dying means sacrificing a certain percentage of your soul, your very being. So the more you get killed, the more empty and drained you feel, until eventually life becomes a living hell to which you have no desire to return. So just because you come back doesn't mean death doesn't suck a whole lot.

I always saw that as being the amount of experience you inherently lost by praying for salvation.

EDIT: And when you gain a level, your "soul soars to new heights".

Details of how the chunk of your soul is lost don't matter, because denizens, presumably, revive themselves through the same process as adventurers.

Ah, Loom Island. I remember being annoyed that I couldn't fight the goblin, I had to flee like a little child and get rescued because I was "too afraid" or somesuch.

On topic, yes to the "some forms of death are permanent"; one events post I recently read mentioned the Dowager in Ashtan cursing some denizen so they'd be unable to resurrect if they died.

Also, yes to some choosing NOT to resurrect. Even if death is temporary, it can still be quite an unpleasant and traumatizing experience. This is particularly true with some of the methods of killing that exist out there, like holobombs, voyria, and (at least!) half the execution methods used in Mhaldor.

Hello! Long time listener (and player), first time caller here.

My $.02, for what its worth:

A long time ago (about 15-16 years ago, if memory serves), I played in a MUD where as player, you only had one life. No last minute rescues. No prayers for salvation. Nothing. You died, and that was it- you had to create a new character from scratch. Sure the NPCs would come back. But you? Nope.

In a way, this actually ENHANCED the gameplay experience as a whole. It forced players to actually THINK about their actions before they went ahead and did them. Also, it provided for excellent RP opportunity as a player's death held with it some genuine tragedy and sense of loss for those the player had befriended over the course of the game.

Even at an XP and possible gold loss, death in Achaea is really more a tedious chore than anything. Rarely during my time playing do I ever see players learn from their own deaths. Hell, even I've died due to stupid decision making only to rush right back into the same damn situation without so much as a second thought. And I'm not the only one.

Sure, you can say that XP loss is metaphor for loss of one's soul. But by that logic, do you regain that missing piece by going out and killing Orcs?

Also, if we as players are "destined for a higher purpose", how does each player's "higher purpose" fit into the grand scheme of the in-game world itself?

...I just REALLY over-thought this, didn't I?

*facepalms*

Permadeath is an acceptable and often beneficial step for many games, especially RPI MUDs and MUSHes. However, such a model will not and cannot work in Achaea, for many reasons, beyond the fact that the majority of the playerbase would certainly not enjoy it (A Bad Thing^TM).

For example, gain deathsight at any given time in Achaea, and you'll see someone dying at least once every five minutes. That's a character gone, down the drain, caput, under permadeath. While yes, that would lessen somewhat under permadeath, it wouldn't entirely go away, especially with the encouraged nature of pk and the dangerous nature of several areas of the world. If a newbie, say, walked into the Vashnars and died to a mountain lion, to the loss of their character, odds are they will be extremely frustrated and will not come back. (A Bad Thing^TM).

In addition, read HELP SUICIDE sometime. Whenever anyone has bought credits, the admin will never allow their character to be deleted so as to maintain purchase records. As Permadeath would have the same effect as a suicide, it wouldn't work for (what? two thirds, four fifths?) of the population of the game, pushing it even farther towards Pay-to-Play along the pay-for-perks scale. (A Bad Thing^TM).

I remember following a paladin guy around to Delos, and then spelling Colbey wrong like 389273982735235 times.

Edit: I think it was the paladin guy that killed the goblin in Azdun, after the other guy that brought me to azdun died because he was even more noobie than I was.

Actually, I have to agree with you on every point Quoren. The example I cited only really worked because only a small group of people played it. And it was entirely free, so no added perks or anything like that.

However, even here, there could be ways to institute such a mechanic without upsetting new players too much. For example, one could heavily impress during a new player's orientation the importance of taking care with one's life. Also, all players in Achaea go through a series of tests in novicehood designed to stress and enhance game world knowledge. Simply make the permadeath caveat a large caveat in initial training/testing. Tell them which places they should and shouldn't go or whatnot.

A rule could be instituted which would allow new players to resurrect until level 21 as well. So this way, they have time to make mistakes without punishment.

As far as persons who bought into Achaea such as myself, why not keep the permadeath rule in place? IRE has your personal information when you buy credits, and you have to send them a valid email to register in the first place. How hard would it be to hold your former character's credits over to a new one if the original dies?

Don't get me wrong. I don't think the current mechanics take away from the game. I've been playing for almost 6 years now, so there's definitely a draw here. My point was simply that death in Achaea at present really doesn't amount to much to get all fussy over, as a player can go back to being just as dumb as before without any serious repercussions.

Conversely, under the current system, I wouldn't have such wonderful memories of hearing, "*sigh* Who's gonna run for the body...again?". Good times right there

Extreme caution is not something you want to encourage in a pulpy, high fantasy game like Achaea. Realism isn't a huge focus of the setting. Permadeath would completely kill conflict. Shallam and Mhaldor would be rapidly depopulated and immediately make peace with one another and never, ever fight again after it was implemented, because every time they have a war, their best fighters would all get killed. Did you see the deathsights for Mhaldor's attack on Eleusis the other day? I saw seven people go at once. I was thoroughly impressed, but with permadeath, I'd be incensed. Seven people dying, forever, because they went to defend their city? Seriously?