Sorry everyone, I can't post right now because I am shoveling snow(Oh god.) I'm also shoveling it in front of my sisters window to make her think the snow got higher!
On a scale of 1 to 10, how much of a dick am I for doing this?
2 Guests
viewing this page
It isn't being a dick if it's funny. It's like the episode of South Park with the whale and Sea Land.
Topic: Character Death
Sides: Allowed Player Killing, Player Consent Required
Conflicts: Player Rights, impact on setting, impact on plot, OOC influence on IC
Side One: Allowed Player Killing
Allowing player killing adds several elements to a roleplay, including depth, character motivation and realism. The depth it adds is through many facets: emotional impact, time lapse and character development. It motivates characters and players themselves because both know they have the chance of dying. It also adds reality to a character and player if they are not completely safe. A player will roleplay a character a lot more realistically and character traits will be more obvious. A brave character will have better rewards and consequences for his actions. A timid character will often be more safe. A calculating character will have a higher success rate while a brash one will simply roll with the punches. The chance for death, in addition to getting hurt and other negative side effects, highlights character personalities, roleplayer skill and roleplay styles.
Side Two: Counter-argument
Allowing player killing may add more depth, but it may detract depth as well. By giving characters the ability to kill, it can derail a character by making them a tool for power. Additionally, more powerful characters are given too many advantages when their power can result in simply ending another character during conflict. Allowing player killing simlpy creates a system to be abused within a roleplay, regardless of the depth it may add. Brash characters will die faster. Timid characters will be boring. Calculating characters will just kill who they can, then hide. It will become less of a roleplay and more of a 'game'.
Side Two: Player Consent Required
Forcing players to consent to their character death, first and foremost, promotes out of character interaction, which is just as important to a roleplay as in character interactions. Everynone should be on the same page with the same understanding and no single player should have their rights infringed on. It is not fair that anyone more powerful than their character can just swipe by and kill them, ruining all of their hard work and development. Players often develop an emotional connection to their character and an abrupt, unwanted end can leave them with remorse and no catharsis. These negative feelings can be a detriment to a community, thus forcing character consent can prevent such grievances.
Side One: Counter-Argument
By allowing players the right to deny their character death, they can influence a roleplay greatly from the out of character. Whereas it may be vastly unfair to have a character die without a proper end, it is also vastly unfair to force another character to act out of character in an in character situation because of an out of character decision made by someone completely arbitrary to the character and the player. While it is important to preserve peace and encourage interaction out of character, it is also important to preserve the integrity of a setting and plot. By allowing players the ability to deny a justified action, the system can be abused and thus negatively influence the roleplay.
Observations
Both arguments create a system that can be abused.
Each system promotes different aspects of the roleplay; plot depth and strength vs. community strength and bonding for apk and rpc respectively
Each argument seems to defend one side of a situation, e.g. allowed player killing defends someone who killed a character properly while required consent defends someone who died unfairly
Primary Conflict
After analysis, the primary conflict is simply that both systems can be abused and work on the assumption that someone will abuse it. Thus, it is only logical to create a situation where no single party is at fault.
Scenario
Player A roleplays RPC A properly. RPC A is a very brash, confident character who is willing to fight a shinobi above their skill level alone. Player B roleplays RPC B properly. RPC B is calm character that abides by the rules of his village and is more powerful than RPC A. RPC A engages in a fight with RPC B and loses. RPC B is faced with killing RPC A. The rules of his village are to kill enemy shinobi if possible. RPC B kills RPC A. The fight was fair, entertaining and each RPC was played to the best of their respective players' abilities with each party playing fairly.
Conclusion
If Player A does not wish for their character to die and only claims it was within their character to act as they did while also providing evidence, is it fair for Player B to skill kill them? Does Player A deserve the right to say "No, you may not kill my character," when there has been no fault on either party and force Player B to break their character to do so.
Logically, no. Giving Player A that right is infringing on the right of Player B to properly roleplay a character. No player inherently deserves the right to tell another player they cannot act within the given confines of their logical actions.
Solution
Even with the conclusion that no player deserves the right to tell another player that they may not do something that their character can, could and should do in a situation like the aforementioned scenario, it was not that conclusion that brought forth the argument. It was the worry of abusing a system set forth. Thus, if the logical solution is to allow player death, developing methods to avoid system abuse for allowing it are needed.
Overall solution, look for methods to avoid instances where players can abuse their right to kill others and create numerous ways to avoid said player-killing. If a Player wants to simply kill others, remove them. If a Player breaks character to kill another, remove them. A player should play their character to play their character, interact with others and develop their character and the story, not kill others. A character should not be designed to kill others. A system should be set forth to avoid player killing. Leaders of the roleplay should guide characters away from situations that cannot be manipulated to avoid said player killing. In the event that player killing happens, it should be known that it is acceptable and it should have to be justified. Before it is finalized, attempt to "retroactively continue" aka retcon a situation to avoid the player death.
Overall Solution
Create good leadership, create strong bonds in the community, avoid players who wish to abuse their rights in ways that will negatively effect others and potentially allow a retcon if both parties accept. Retcons can NOT force players to roleplay a scenario that results in a certain way. That is not roleplay. It should only be used if both players wish to avoid player killing.
Sides: Allowed Player Killing, Player Consent Required
Conflicts: Player Rights, impact on setting, impact on plot, OOC influence on IC
Side One: Allowed Player Killing
Allowing player killing adds several elements to a roleplay, including depth, character motivation and realism. The depth it adds is through many facets: emotional impact, time lapse and character development. It motivates characters and players themselves because both know they have the chance of dying. It also adds reality to a character and player if they are not completely safe. A player will roleplay a character a lot more realistically and character traits will be more obvious. A brave character will have better rewards and consequences for his actions. A timid character will often be more safe. A calculating character will have a higher success rate while a brash one will simply roll with the punches. The chance for death, in addition to getting hurt and other negative side effects, highlights character personalities, roleplayer skill and roleplay styles.
Side Two: Counter-argument
Allowing player killing may add more depth, but it may detract depth as well. By giving characters the ability to kill, it can derail a character by making them a tool for power. Additionally, more powerful characters are given too many advantages when their power can result in simply ending another character during conflict. Allowing player killing simlpy creates a system to be abused within a roleplay, regardless of the depth it may add. Brash characters will die faster. Timid characters will be boring. Calculating characters will just kill who they can, then hide. It will become less of a roleplay and more of a 'game'.
Side Two: Player Consent Required
Forcing players to consent to their character death, first and foremost, promotes out of character interaction, which is just as important to a roleplay as in character interactions. Everynone should be on the same page with the same understanding and no single player should have their rights infringed on. It is not fair that anyone more powerful than their character can just swipe by and kill them, ruining all of their hard work and development. Players often develop an emotional connection to their character and an abrupt, unwanted end can leave them with remorse and no catharsis. These negative feelings can be a detriment to a community, thus forcing character consent can prevent such grievances.
Side One: Counter-Argument
By allowing players the right to deny their character death, they can influence a roleplay greatly from the out of character. Whereas it may be vastly unfair to have a character die without a proper end, it is also vastly unfair to force another character to act out of character in an in character situation because of an out of character decision made by someone completely arbitrary to the character and the player. While it is important to preserve peace and encourage interaction out of character, it is also important to preserve the integrity of a setting and plot. By allowing players the ability to deny a justified action, the system can be abused and thus negatively influence the roleplay.
Observations
Both arguments create a system that can be abused.
Each system promotes different aspects of the roleplay; plot depth and strength vs. community strength and bonding for apk and rpc respectively
Each argument seems to defend one side of a situation, e.g. allowed player killing defends someone who killed a character properly while required consent defends someone who died unfairly
Primary Conflict
After analysis, the primary conflict is simply that both systems can be abused and work on the assumption that someone will abuse it. Thus, it is only logical to create a situation where no single party is at fault.
Scenario
Player A roleplays RPC A properly. RPC A is a very brash, confident character who is willing to fight a shinobi above their skill level alone. Player B roleplays RPC B properly. RPC B is calm character that abides by the rules of his village and is more powerful than RPC A. RPC A engages in a fight with RPC B and loses. RPC B is faced with killing RPC A. The rules of his village are to kill enemy shinobi if possible. RPC B kills RPC A. The fight was fair, entertaining and each RPC was played to the best of their respective players' abilities with each party playing fairly.
Conclusion
If Player A does not wish for their character to die and only claims it was within their character to act as they did while also providing evidence, is it fair for Player B to skill kill them? Does Player A deserve the right to say "No, you may not kill my character," when there has been no fault on either party and force Player B to break their character to do so.
Logically, no. Giving Player A that right is infringing on the right of Player B to properly roleplay a character. No player inherently deserves the right to tell another player they cannot act within the given confines of their logical actions.
Solution
Even with the conclusion that no player deserves the right to tell another player that they may not do something that their character can, could and should do in a situation like the aforementioned scenario, it was not that conclusion that brought forth the argument. It was the worry of abusing a system set forth. Thus, if the logical solution is to allow player death, developing methods to avoid system abuse for allowing it are needed.
Overall solution, look for methods to avoid instances where players can abuse their right to kill others and create numerous ways to avoid said player-killing. If a Player wants to simply kill others, remove them. If a Player breaks character to kill another, remove them. A player should play their character to play their character, interact with others and develop their character and the story, not kill others. A character should not be designed to kill others. A system should be set forth to avoid player killing. Leaders of the roleplay should guide characters away from situations that cannot be manipulated to avoid said player killing. In the event that player killing happens, it should be known that it is acceptable and it should have to be justified. Before it is finalized, attempt to "retroactively continue" aka retcon a situation to avoid the player death.
Overall Solution
Create good leadership, create strong bonds in the community, avoid players who wish to abuse their rights in ways that will negatively effect others and potentially allow a retcon if both parties accept. Retcons can NOT force players to roleplay a scenario that results in a certain way. That is not roleplay. It should only be used if both players wish to avoid player killing.
Hirothelegend Bionis Disciple
Member
Seen
9 yrs ago
Prince said
Character Death Allowed Player Killing, Player Consent Required Player Rights, impact on setting, impact on plot, OOC influence on ICAllowing player killing adds several elements to a roleplay, including depth, character motivation and realism. The depth it adds is through many facets: emotional impact, time lapse and character development. It motivates characters and players themselves because both know they have the chance of dying. It also adds reality to a character and player if they are not completely safe. A player will roleplay a character a lot more realistically and character traits will be more obvious. A brave character will have better rewards and consequences for his actions. A timid character will often be more safe. A calculating character will have a higher success rate while a brash one will simply roll with the punches. The chance for death, in addition to getting hurt and other negative side effects, highlights character personalities, roleplayer skill and roleplay styles.Allowing player killing may add more depth, but it may detract depth as well. By giving characters the ability to kill, it can derail a character by making them a tool for power. Additionally, more powerful characters are given too many advantages when their power can result in simply ending another character during conflict. Allowing player killing simlpy creates a system to be abused within a roleplay, regardless of the depth it may add. Brash characters will die faster. Timid characters will be boring. Calculating characters will just kill who they can, then hide. It will become less of a roleplay and more of a 'game'.Forcing players to consent to their character death, first and foremost, promotes out of character interaction, which is just as important to a roleplay as in character interactions. Everynone should be on the same page with the same understanding and no single player should have their rights infringed on. It is not fair that anyone more powerful than their character can just swipe by and kill them, ruining all of their hard work and development. Players often develop an emotional connection to their character and an abrupt, unwanted end can leave them with remorse and no catharsis. These negative feelings can be a detriment to a community, thus forcing character consent can prevent such grievances. By allowing players the right to deny their character death, they can influence a roleplay greatly from the out of character. Whereas it may be vastly unfair to have a character die without a proper end, it is also vastly unfair to force another character to act out of character in an in character situation because of an out of character decision made by someone completely arbitrary to the character and the player. While it is important to preserve peace and encourage interaction out of character, it is also important to preserve the integrity of a setting and plot. By allowing players the ability to deny a justified action, the system can be abused and thus negatively influence the roleplay.Both arguments create a system that can be abused.Each system promotes different aspects of the roleplay; plot depth and strength vs. community strength and bonding for apk and rpc respectivelyEach argument seems to defend one side of a situation, e.g. allowed player killing defends someone who killed a character properly while required consent defends someone who died unfairlyAfter analysis, the primary conflict is simply that both systems can be abused and work on the assumption that someone will abuse it. Thus, it is only logical to create a situation where no single party is at fault.Player A roleplays RPC A properly. RPC A is a very brash, confident character who is willing to fight a shinobi above their skill level alone. Player B roleplays RPC B properly. RPC B is calm character that abides by the rules of his village and is more powerful than RPC A. RPC A engages in a fight with RPC B and loses. RPC B is faced with killing RPC A. The rules of his village are to kill enemy shinobi if possible. RPC B kills RPC A. The fight was fair, entertaining and each RPC was played to the best of their respective players' abilities with each party playing fairly.If Player A does not wish for their character to die and only claims it was within their character to act as they did while also providing evidence, is it fair for Player B to skill kill them? Does Player A deserve the right to say "No, you may not kill my character," when there has been no fault on either party and force Player B to break their character to do so.Logically, no. Giving Player A that right is infringing on the right of Player B to properly roleplay a character. No player inherently deserves the right to tell another player they cannot act within the given confines of their logical actions.Even with the conclusion that no player deserves the right to tell another player that they may not do something that their character can, could and should do in a situation like the aforementioned scenario, it was not that conclusion that brought forth the argument. It was the worry of abusing a system set forth. Thus, if the logical solution is to allow player death, developing methods to avoid system abuse for allowing it are needed. Overall solution, look for methods to avoid instances where players can abuse their right to kill others and create numerous ways to avoid said player-killing. If a Player wants to simply kill others, remove them. If a Player breaks character to kill another, remove them. A player should play their character to play their character, interact with others and develop their character and the story, not kill others. A character should not be designed to kill others. A system should be set forth to avoid player killing. Leaders of the roleplay should guide characters away from situations that cannot be manipulated to avoid said player killing. In the event that player killing happens, it should be known that it is acceptable and it should have to be justified. Before it is finalized, attempt to "retroactively continue" aka retcon a situation to avoid the player death. Create good leadership, create strong bonds in the community, avoid players who wish to abuse their rights in ways that will negatively effect others and potentially allow a retcon if both parties accept. Retcons can force players to roleplay a scenario that results in a certain way. That is not roleplay. It should only be used if both players wish to avoid player killing.
this right here, is the solution to everything. Amazing job.
Even if it is, people still have to accept the simple fact that PK'ing can happen, whether they want it or like it.
Prince said
Even if it is, people still have to accept the simple fact that PK'ing can happen, whether they want it or like it.
Well, actually this is all up to Corrupt. This is his rp and he always will have the final say. :3
My statement was on the assertion my logic is true. You can accept or deny it as you please. Not my RP.
Speaking of which...
what IS this RP's policy on player killing? I don't think it was mentioned in the rules.
what IS this RP's policy on player killing? I don't think it was mentioned in the rules.
All of the threads I run end up allowing or promoting player killing. *shrug*
No more unicorns?! ;u;
GM
CorruptedShadow The Warrior of Sunlight
Member
Seen
7 yrs ago
I admit, I DO encourage killing off characters....but...I'm not sure. I think I'd only really allow it if the player is either not using the character at all or they're just recklessly doing everything and thinking they can take the world.
CorruptedShadow said
I admit, I DO encourage killing off characters....but...I'm not sure. I think I'd only really allow it if the player is either not using the character at all or they're just recklessly doing everything and thinking they can take the world.
*cough*Isai*coughcough* xD
Lol. Isai just wants to become Raikage and lead the Republic. That totally isn't world domination or that different than Naruto wanting to be hokage, right? Besides, Isai has zombies. So we should all just let it happen for the sake of Zombie Ninja Apocalypse. :3
Dystopia said
Lol. Isai just wants to become Raikage and lead the Republic. That totally isn't world domination or that different than Naruto wanting to be hokage, right? Besides, Isai has zombies. So we should all just let it happen for the sake of Zombie Ninja Apocalypse. :3
The way I've set up my Raikage it wouldn't be out of character to kill him as well as it wouldn't be out of character to just banish him. It was a threat that Atlas's character has to live up on or otherwise he will be considered weak. So since it doesn't break character in both scenario's then there is no point in killing Isai as a character but there is no way that he isn't getting banished if that office isn't clean. I don't understand why he doesn't get one of his Zombies to do it but whatever. I'm sure he can get strong enough as a missing nin provided he keeps training. That is my take on it, if it is in character to kill and or to spare then spare the character because it is just as important as your own.
Origin said
That is my take on it, if it is in character to kill and or to spare then spare the character because it is just as important as your own.
I think that explains it perfectly.
And the ponies are back. I was starting to miss their pretty faces. D:
Woah so much has happened. Ummmmm is it okay if I post a pretty short paragraph with Aiko cause I don't really have much to say.
Yog Sothoth
Member
Seen
5 yrs ago
[here is my samurai character, he is the childhood friend of Yuuto Nakarai.]
Appearance:
Name: Zaikan Moramushi
Age: 20
Gender: male
Village: Land of Iron
Village Rank(Genin, Chunin, Etc.): none
Ninja Rank(S-Rank being the highest and deadliest.): if he was a ninja he would be an S-rank.
Release: fire
Tools(Optional): he uses a Katana that named Ryu and is made of metal that makes resistant to the fire that surrounds the blade when he uses his chakra nature to make it sharper and more deadly.
Biography: at a very young age, Zaikan Moramushi was a very skilled swordsmen when compared to his peers, and dedicated most of his time as a child to refining his skills as a swordsmen. unlike many of fellow samurai students, Zaikan discovered how to combine his chakra nature with his sword techniques to make them more powerful. He wasn't the only young samurai who utilized his chakra nature, and that was his childhood friend Yuuto Nakarai. the two of them had been great friends for many years, but while Zaikan supported the Land of Iron's involvement with the republic, Yuuto did not and Zaikan never really understood why his friend was against the idea of their country being apart of the Shinobi Republic.
like with his friend, Zaikan rose high among the ranks of his fellow samurai at young age, but when Yuuto had dueled against the Taisho's right-hand man and won, Zaikan was shocked and angered at his friend's resigning from his position in the government. when he was exiled, Zaikan said nothing to his childhood friend, Zaikan thought of Yuuto as nothing more than a disgraceful exile and tried to forget his old friend. he continued to serve his country and republic, going on missions that were very dangerous and he rose very high in the ranks of his nations, but one of the high ranked missions had left him with a large scar on his face. he had been refining his Sonic-Sword style which had been extremely hard to practice and utilize when he had started developing the style, now he was able to use it in open combat but it was still a hard form of sword fighting to use.
now with the tensions between the republic and Konoha, Zaikan prepared himself for a possible war and he wondered for the first time in a long time if he would see his Yuuto if war really did occur in the shinobi world. but his meeting with his childhood friend would come sooner than expected when his superiors gave him the mission of finding Yuuto and making sure he didn't join the side of Konoha by any means necessary.
Jutsu List: he does not have traditional jutsu, but has found a way to use his chakra nature to increase his deadliness with a sword. Zaikan is an excellent practitioner of Kenjutsu and is incredibly skilled with a blade.
Sonic Sword Style: in his many years of training, Zaikan developed the art of incredibly fast movement. this allows him to move at speeds that makes it look like he disappears and move faster than the eye can follow. in order to keep up such speeds, Zaikan must maintain a constant bodily flow of chakra.
Chakra-Blade: he channels his chakra into his sword to make it make stronger.
Fire release: Flame-Blade - this technique allows Zaikan to cover his sword in bright reddish orange flames which makes the blade hotter therefor making able to cut through objects easier.
Fire release: Great Flame-Blade - it is a more advanced form of the Flame-Blade technique, and requires more chakra to utilize it. the technique causes the blade to be covered in bright blue flames which make it even hotter than Flame-Blade, thus making it far more deadly.
Fire release: Dragon-Blade - by channeling his chakra through his blade, Zaikan can shoot a jet of fire from it, but it uses up a good amount of chakra.
Fire release: Flame-Slash - Zaikan simply slashes out with his Katana and a sends out a wave of fire at his opponents, he uses for when his enemies dodge his blade but get caught by the flames of this technique.
Kekkai Genki: none
Appearance:
Name: Zaikan Moramushi
Age: 20
Gender: male
Village: Land of Iron
Village Rank(Genin, Chunin, Etc.): none
Ninja Rank(S-Rank being the highest and deadliest.): if he was a ninja he would be an S-rank.
Release: fire
Tools(Optional): he uses a Katana that named Ryu and is made of metal that makes resistant to the fire that surrounds the blade when he uses his chakra nature to make it sharper and more deadly.
Biography: at a very young age, Zaikan Moramushi was a very skilled swordsmen when compared to his peers, and dedicated most of his time as a child to refining his skills as a swordsmen. unlike many of fellow samurai students, Zaikan discovered how to combine his chakra nature with his sword techniques to make them more powerful. He wasn't the only young samurai who utilized his chakra nature, and that was his childhood friend Yuuto Nakarai. the two of them had been great friends for many years, but while Zaikan supported the Land of Iron's involvement with the republic, Yuuto did not and Zaikan never really understood why his friend was against the idea of their country being apart of the Shinobi Republic.
like with his friend, Zaikan rose high among the ranks of his fellow samurai at young age, but when Yuuto had dueled against the Taisho's right-hand man and won, Zaikan was shocked and angered at his friend's resigning from his position in the government. when he was exiled, Zaikan said nothing to his childhood friend, Zaikan thought of Yuuto as nothing more than a disgraceful exile and tried to forget his old friend. he continued to serve his country and republic, going on missions that were very dangerous and he rose very high in the ranks of his nations, but one of the high ranked missions had left him with a large scar on his face. he had been refining his Sonic-Sword style which had been extremely hard to practice and utilize when he had started developing the style, now he was able to use it in open combat but it was still a hard form of sword fighting to use.
now with the tensions between the republic and Konoha, Zaikan prepared himself for a possible war and he wondered for the first time in a long time if he would see his Yuuto if war really did occur in the shinobi world. but his meeting with his childhood friend would come sooner than expected when his superiors gave him the mission of finding Yuuto and making sure he didn't join the side of Konoha by any means necessary.
Jutsu List: he does not have traditional jutsu, but has found a way to use his chakra nature to increase his deadliness with a sword. Zaikan is an excellent practitioner of Kenjutsu and is incredibly skilled with a blade.
Sonic Sword Style: in his many years of training, Zaikan developed the art of incredibly fast movement. this allows him to move at speeds that makes it look like he disappears and move faster than the eye can follow. in order to keep up such speeds, Zaikan must maintain a constant bodily flow of chakra.
Chakra-Blade: he channels his chakra into his sword to make it make stronger.
Fire release: Flame-Blade - this technique allows Zaikan to cover his sword in bright reddish orange flames which makes the blade hotter therefor making able to cut through objects easier.
Fire release: Great Flame-Blade - it is a more advanced form of the Flame-Blade technique, and requires more chakra to utilize it. the technique causes the blade to be covered in bright blue flames which make it even hotter than Flame-Blade, thus making it far more deadly.
Fire release: Dragon-Blade - by channeling his chakra through his blade, Zaikan can shoot a jet of fire from it, but it uses up a good amount of chakra.
Fire release: Flame-Slash - Zaikan simply slashes out with his Katana and a sends out a wave of fire at his opponents, he uses for when his enemies dodge his blade but get caught by the flames of this technique.
Kekkai Genki: none
GM
CorruptedShadow The Warrior of Sunlight
Member
Seen
7 yrs ago
I can actually accept this. The best part about it is the fact that you nerfed your jutsu so that you need constant chakra flow.
Masaki Haruna OLD TESTAMENT
Member
Seen
8 yrs ago
Does anyone think, Ria is becoming more serious lately? and the Jellal Fernandes is showing on her...
Hmm, oh no Ria is growing up! They grow up so fast!
2 Guests
viewing this page
of
99
© 2007-2024