Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 6.2K All Categories
- 3.1K Everything Achaea
- 1.5K North of Thera
- 26 Archives of the Terraformer
- 257 The Matsuhama Arena
- 885 The Golden Dais of Creation
- 299 The Scarlattan Theatre
- 149 The Blank Canvas
- 2K Getting Help
- 412 General Questions
- 258 Quick Class Questions
- 1.3K Tech Support
- 313 Client Help
- 486 Curing Systems and Scripts
- 841 Off-Topic
- 255 The Wander Inn
- 586 The Universal Membrane
- 298 Class Discussions
- 298 Individual Class Sections
- 20 Alchemist
- 9 Apostate
- 30 Blademaster
- 9 Depthswalker
- 14 Druid
- 4 Infernal
- 20 Jester
- 19 Magi
- 34 Monk
- 11 Occultist
- 8 Paladin
- 7 Priest
- 29 Runewarden
- 18 Sentinel
- 26 Serpent
- 20 Shaman
- 9 Sylvan
Comments
It wasnt always like this...at least, it wasnt before. If you had an RP reason to attack someone, then it was generally okay, you just had to face the repercussions of being hired on. The main idea associated with it was to use common sense and not to use half-ass excuses like "i'm just a murderer". I'm not sure where this sudden "you are breaking rules to attack someone unless the NPC said it is okay" came from...completely new to me.
Edit: Heck, the HELP PK scroll even states it:
This does not mean you can attack other players repeatedly just for being a
member of an opposing organisation. Neither can you justify your behaviour by
claiming something like "my character is a psycho killer!" A player must have
done something serious to you to warrant an attack, and they must be aware of
the conflict before you attack them.
I'm still not sure why it isnt seen as justifiable to attack someone slaughtering your race, of which you are part of the Highclan associated with being connected and communing with that race, even after having warned them, which is what the scroll says. If that isnt seen as legitimate RP reasoning based on this new rule...then I dont know what is.
Having to wait for the NPC to give you thumbsup...seems pretty stupid
Because he's Tsol'aa. If he doesn't get issued over it, I'm p. sure that Kogan is just fine.
@Faur "literally nothing I can do" is a joke. There is nothing stopping you from writing to or communicating with the relevant denizens and seeing if one of the active Gods decide to roll with it. There's also nothing stopping you from emailing and trying to set something up.
Results of disembowel testing | Knight limb counter | GMCP AB files
The new rules were very simple. If you had rp justification, then go ahead. It was nice and flexible and offered interesting gameplay. Attempting to once again add clauses and notes based on circumstances will just ruin it again.
From an RP standpoint, I see it as rather daunting that if a dwarf player is seeing someone kill dwarves in one of the camps, that they are not allowed to stop them because "admin said we arent allowed". I can picture them standing there with an axe and asking the killer if they would please stop gutting that dwarf..
In conclusion. This entire new rule being throw at the current pk rp ruling is just going to start stunting rp attacks. Yes it is new, because several of us having been following the idea we can defend npc of our race based on RP reasoning. There was no previous mention of this idea that "the npcs have to say it is ok"
Ya cause that's great logic. Despite Nicola already pretty blatantly posting to the contrary.
From my original understanding, the idea of mutual alliance was more than "We get to attack those hunting there". As you said, it is about interacting and forging an RP relationship, in order to get the mutual alliance. It is why mutual alliances are more of a world-wide stage concept, wherein this org has fully announced to the world that it is in line (at least to a degree) with the ideals of X organization.
But my point wasnt about mutual alliances, which I believe are a different concept entirely. My point was: when did attempting to stop those slaughtering villagers of a village of player's race, become not illegible for RP motivation for PK? Like I said before, I had seen it several times occur, from both sides of the field. I've been attacked/warned for killing NPCs of a race in a village, as well as been on the attacking end, in the Arcadia mention. Heck at one point I even considered going back to being on guard in Arcadia when the "Arcadian Genocide" memento reward was announced. No, it wasnt about mutual alliance, it was about personal racial RP, which it seems out of no where we have now been told "nope".
@Asmodron, you can do that if you want to, but you just have to face the repercussions of getting hired on for attacking folks.
The repercussions could be more severe for defending, as the OP replyissue says, denizens you have "no reason to defend."
- With sharp, crackling tones, Kyrra tells you, "The ladies must love you immensely."
- (Eleusian Ranger Techs): Savira says, "Most of the hard stuff seem to have this built in code like: If adventurer_hitting_me = "Sarathai" then send("terminate and selfdestruct")."
- Makarios says, "Serve well and perish."
- Xaden says, "Xaden confirmed scrub 2017."
It is "willy-nilly RP", broski.
Safe to assume they didn't ask you, lol. I will repeat again: Just because you don't get issued over something, doesn't mean you're not in the wrong.
Hire more. Feed the marks. Hire more.
got gud
Cities defend 1-2 areas at most. Those areas are geographically close to the cities. The areas they defend tend to be smaller villages, rather than major bashing zones. And they are defended relatively consistently.
Racial clans often want to lay claim to many areas. The areas are all across the map. They're usually major bashing zones. The defense is inconsistent.
Racial clans lack the legitimacy of cities.
Defending bashing areas is stupid and annoying anyway. It's a chore to do. The only people who enjoy it are the ones who enjoy flimsy pretenses to PK people. Token org enemying is lazy and unengaging. If you want to boost the legitimacy of your racial clan you should do more cool cultural stuff.
Also, let's be real. 99% of the people who "defend" an area, only do so when they know they can kill the person hunting it, lol.
It falls under what I call the "psycho killer rule". Basically, there are avenues of RP which are detrimental to the game, no matter how well roleplayed they are and how consistent their player is.
Maybe I'm a Targossan who had a bad brush with Chaos in my past and now I have PTSD and I see Chaos patterns and plots everywhere, and I respond to this by killing the participants to stop their plans from succeeding. Skye is sending subliminal Chaos messages in her market ads so she has to die. This shop is clearly a front for a cult to pass messages back and forth between its members, so the shopkeeper has to die. That novice aide is tainted and corrupting those he teaches, that scholar is delving too far into the forbidden. They all have to die.
It's a line of RP where it doesn't matter how well you play it. It doesn't matter how consistent you are. It doesn't matter what your story is. It doesn't matter how good your story is or how good your writing is or how much effort and thought you put into it. No matter how good it is, it's detrimental to the game for them to let you use your personal RP as carte blanche to kill anybody you like. Similarly, it is detrimental to the game for them you use your personal RP to dictate which areas people can and cannot bash in.