Killing In The Name Of......?

[(Zl-eye-f)-nea]

Now that the Mya story is over and all has played out, I want to comment on something that came up early on but which was swept under the carpet for one reason or another. There was some debate over how the killing of the character was done, most of which involved people fervently disagreeing with the person who brought the issue up. I totally understand refusing to discuss the issue unless the person involved complains themselves, therefore, I'm making this on a general level.

1) A person was killed using a scripted item and nothing else.
- You don't have to accept an item, it automatically arrives with you
- No RP was done to go with this

The first issue being that the individual has absolutely no forewarning or acceptance of events. Now, you can argue that this is what happens in real life or that this brings an essence of surprise, but in any situation where someone is going to be killed, unless you sniper rifle them or poison them, there is sneaking about, maybe a struggle etc etc but certainly some form of fore-warning. The item was a knife, not a rifle or poison and if we really want to make it real the killer should be doing jail time along with anyone involved. It isn't "coddling" as one of you put it, to assume that you wont just randomly die out of the blue when you log into a game you play not having consented to it and with no forewarning or
action to dictate why. I'm glad Mya seemingly took it all in good spirit, but if it had been me and someone had killed Zleiphneir with no thought to me for the benefit of running a story which I also had absolutely no knowledge about and which there was no visible set up for...I would have gone mad.

2) Game mechanics

Many of you argued the point that the reason it is ok and the reason it is a real story is because it used game mechanics. There is an unequivical fact that someone was dead due to a particular item sent by a particular person and that nobody had to witness it to confirm that. Although blue text wise all you would have to do is post the chat log...I do agree if you can use the game mechanics then fantastic, but i would expect both not one or the other, isnt that what everyone is always harping on about? and in fact, isn't that how a certain group were "held captive" because they could have left whenever they wanted mechanics wise, so was their captivity any less valid? I would have expected some actual story to go with it as it is pretty meaningless the way it was done, just as meaningless as how the person was returned. Whilst I appreciate it was fun and gave people something to do, those two things coupled for me just made the story a bit of a farce in honesty - which was pointed out quite nicely half way through by someone laying claim to responsibility just because they could. The way it was done also leaves open the possibility of just doing it for the hell of it, to make this point I could script a number of items and just randomly go about giving them to people I want dead - which frankly seems ridiculous, or is it just me?

I wish also to just say that the idea was a briliant one, and people obviously had a lot of fun - even I joined in a little, and hence why I have waited until now to comment so as not to ruin it. However the repercussions of how it was done worry me for the aforementioned reasons, and I think it does need to be discussed.

Z


[Spoiler]
-------------

Quotations from the main thread for evidence:


Dst, Post 9
Using an item called Stone Dagger.

Tarq, Post 15

Third, to all others: If this quest seems like a dumb idea, I'm sorry. I've been waiting for something like it for a long time. I refuse to write a

quest about "made-up stuff" - the murder of Mya Celestia by another Player Character (Ivorak) using game-mechanical means (the stone dagger) really

happened in MD, and is not an event that is contingent upon observers to agree that it happened (as dst helpfully pointed out). No asterisks were

involved in Mya's death, and there is nothing meta-gamed about her corpse. You don't have to post here if you don't like it, though your opinions

are welcome if you absolutely must share.

Sharazhad, Post 22

With all due respect, I think the way it was handled was poor form. Mya had no idea what was coming and something like that goes against gaming

courtesy.

Pip, Post 23

So, Shara, basically you think that people shouldn't involve other people in anything negative, or undesired, without permission? ... I'm not saying

that pre-planning things is bad, but overdoing it just makes it...well, it takes half of the fun out.

Awiiya, Post 24

No murderer asks their victim before killing them... that would be very counter-intuitive...Mya isn't supposed to be happy about being killed. She's

been thrown into a position, and it's up to her to play it how she likes.

The reason people dislike the "bad RP" is that it is based on imagination and astericks. This is a concrete activity with real repercussions. I'm

sorry if she doesn't like that reality.

Aysun, Post 25

Forgive me, but I think what you're describing is called 'coddling'...Someone possessed a tool that was created with the ability to actually slay a

player, and they used it. This item was not built in with a 'ask your victim first if it's ok' safety lock...Now, the 'good' can either fight back

with some real force of their own or take it.

Tarq, Post 30

I didn't want to spoil the surprise or the shock.

Tarq, Post 36

The point of this "quest" is that it is an organic story in which players can interact with each other in a semi-structured way.

Assira, Post 67

We are the cause of Mya's death and the chaos it has caused

Mya Celestia, Post 81

Mya's body was regenerated by Loreroot and the Magic Duel realm.[/Spoiler]

[Tarquinus]

Obviously, the whole thing could have been handled better. I made many mistakes in running and playing the quest.

Still, if I had it to do over again, I'd not change much, if anything. I don't want to get sidetracked into a discussion of the idea of the events' reality or verisimilitude, though you raise valid points there. I will say, in brief, that some of your objections are based on things beyond the control of an ordinary player with few special powers or privileges. If I must, I will address all your objections line by line.

There is a group of people in the game who seem to despise roleplaying and to not understand the point of it. I have long believed that game mechanics must govern all roleplayed disputes, and after all the time I've spent running and playing tabletop RPGs, I am set in that belief. I was most interested in persuading people "on the fence", who prefer combat and might be interested in roleplay if they saw a point to it. I was--and remain--far, far less worried about pleasing people who are fundamentally opposed to roleplay, or people who will roleplay anything whatsoever when they are bored. A story must have conflict in order to offer interest, and no matter how you look at it, Mya's murder was interesting.

It's all very well to say roleplaying must be based on consent, and indeed it must, but I ask you to consider the scope of the thing and how many people must be involved to carry it off, the limitations of what tools are available, and the impossibility of pleasing or persuading everyone. Your forthrightness about how you would have reacted to Zleiphnir's murder is bold and appreciated - and it is, in fact, very like the reaction of the dagger's first victim - yet it does make me appreciate Mya's reasonable nature and strong roleplaying skill all the more.

I am sensible of your kindness in waiting to post this, and in praising the effort. Thank you. The thing was fun, and I will do something very like it again as soon as the chance presents itself.

[b]Edited for grammar, typos, and clarity[/b]

Edited June 16, 2010 by Tarquinus

[awiiya]

What you seem to be suggesting is that we of the community, when doing anything, must ask anybody who will be affected by the action before acting.

Examples: Before killing someone, you must make sure they know something is happening. Before tying them down, make sure to say *tries to tie down personx*.

I agree that in the case of something "imaginary" (lacking in-game support) it is necessary and polite to make sure that all parties in an action are in agreement. If I were to cast a spell I didn't have on somebody, I would make sure that they were going to play along before I did it.

In the case of a game mechanic, such as spells, items, etc, I think it is perfectly acceptable for someone to act without the permission of another. We jail people without asking them whether they want to be jailed, and I think it's fine to kill them without asking as well. If the game gives you the power to do something then everybody else has to abide by that. The only set of rules we ALL have to obey are the ones that are hard coded. The social rules, which is the majority of roleplay, are best left to group consensus.

I've been criticized before for casting a GoE spell on someone without asking, and people have called me rude for doing so. It is within my power, and so I feel no guilt, and so perhaps I am deserving of their criticism. However, I still hold that if someone is given the power to enforce their actions, it is not in poor "manners" to act on their desires without asking.

That is what this conversation boils down to: what is the proper etiquette of roleplaying? In my case, I do not think casting spells without asking is rude. I do think that using asterisks to perform actions that are not hardcoded is rude. That is a line I draw, though I can see how you would draw a vastly different line. I will maintain my belief, whether or not it is considered rude.

Awi

[(Zl-eye-f)-nea]

@Tarq
My post isn't to personally criticise you, let me underline that as it seems...almost...like you took it that way. My talk of realism etc is only to discuss the objections that were raised originally. [i]"I was--and remain--far, far less worried about pleasing people who are fundamentally opposed to roleplay, or people who will roleplay anything whatsoever when they are bored"[/i] This covers 100% of MD players, including yourself, so I don't really get your point there? From your last statement it seems to be that you won't bow to a particular group suggesting something isn't right? well ok sure but I don't think a discussion is bowing to anyone but more a willingness to see different points. Scope wise...I've had to get consent from a lot of people for story things before, it's really not difficult. What I'm saying is, the story set a precident, a precident that could have very bad consequences that a number of people appear to be blind to or just really couldn't give a damn about so long as they get their way. Maybe its boredom, I don't know.

@Awi
To suggest we cannot question the validity of the mechanics of the game is to fail to grasp the months and years you have spent playing it. You know as well as I do everything is up for debate and discussion - and even change. Falling back on well the game allows it so its ok really doesn't cut it. The reason I bring this up isn't about role play etiquette, it's about conflict management. Casting a spell you have is one thing, even casting a kill spell you have would be totally different to this situation. Sorry if this sounds curt - but I assume I don't have to explain why.

Let me make what I said cleaner cut:

The situation set a precident for item scripting, I don't think the precident is ok for the following reasons: Firstly, it means anyone can kill anyone without warning for any reason (or lack of) they like. Secondly, the victim has 0 control over that.

If you cannot see how that is going to cause trouble then you will silence me with ease, as I will be lost for words.

Z

[Firsanthalas]

I would also like to add something to the mix. Aside from the question of killing Mya, there is another factor. Namely that she was thrown into the middle of a quest. Now, nobody would just assume that someone is willing to participate in a quest without first asking them. Yet, it seems that some people think that if you kill someone that it is suddenly acceptable?
I don't want this to come across as simply bashing Tarq or anyone else. I think that there is usually too much negativity surrounding people trying to do something creative. But, mistakes are made, they should be pointed out and learned from. So, I think that in future, people should be asked first. The quest was an interesting thing and it definately brought some activity.
As for killing people and justifying it. This is supposed to be a game. Killing a character has a very real affect on a person. Not just the character, but the person behind it. You could argue that it is tantamount to a jail sentence, as the person is left not being able to do much, if anything at all with their character for a significant period of time. And you cannot simply toss people in jail simply because you have an item and feel like it can you? And even then, the person has a chance to object to their jailing. You can't object to someone simply making you dead via an item.
One other thing. Items are supposed to be used for RP purposes and to facilitate game mechanics. I really don't think that an item that kills people is simply a tool of game mechanics. It is very definately meant for RP. Killing someone and saying you used an item and declaring that as legitimate for that reason alone seems more like godmodding to me, but with the advantage of having an item to back up your action. Maybe it is an over-reaction, but I fear that this may start a trend that could get quite ugly in the future, especially if other items are releases that can result in very real changes of state to a character.

[Tarquinus]

[quote name='(Zl-eye-f)-nea' date='16 June 2010 - 05:18 AM' timestamp='1276683513' post='61980'][i]"I was--and remain--far, far less worried about pleasing people who are fundamentally opposed to roleplay, or people who will roleplay anything whatsoever when they are bored"[/i] This covers 100% of MD players, including yourself, so I don't really get your point there?[/quote]
I refer to the extreme camps. Some players seem to have an inveterate hatred of roleplay, and who they are and why they have it is a whole other topic. The other end of the spectrum, those who will roleplay anything - [u]anything at all[/u], whether anyone else thinks it is interesting or not - are a choir that doesn't need to hear my sermon. The ones that I want to reach are those like the few that came to me and told me this quest had changed their minds about roleplaying and showed them how much fun it could be.

[quote]From your last statement it seems to be that you won't bow to a particular group suggesting something isn't right?[/quote]
Discussion is fine, but you will find me intransigent. My belief in the efficacy and utility of the simple fact of mechanics, even if they are bent, abused, broken, or otherwise, is unlikely to be shaken. I am opposed to roleplay that disregards systemic resolutions in favor of civilized consent, which in my experience both in MD and out of it is depressingly rare. You can't "godmode" in GURPS, D&D, Call of Cthulhu, or any LARP I've ever played. It's systemically impossible.

[quote]Scope wise...I've had to get consent from a lot of people for story things before, it's really not difficult.[/quote]
That may be your experience, but it varies from mine. Mya was in fact the fourth candidate for this particular quest, and she seems to have been an excellent choice. I found that other characters as popular or important were unwilling, for various reasons, to cede control of their personal characters' stories in the interest of the greater game. The timing of the murder was inconvenient to her, deliberately, and its resolution (still) uncertain... and she has handled it all with enviable and exemplary grace.

[quote]What I'm saying is, the story set a precident, a precident that could have very bad consequences that a number of people appear to be blind to or just really couldn't give a damn about so long as they get their way.[/quote]
The precedent is not set by the story but by the existence of the item, which was no invention of mine. I learned of its existence almost by accident, and happened to be in a position to influence its owner to play along.

[quote]The situation set a precident for item scripting, I don't think the precident is ok for the following reasons: Firstly, it means anyone can kill anyone without warning for any reason (or lack of) they like. Secondly, the victim has 0 control over that.[/quote]
I fail to see how this is different, really, from being beaten by six-drac rituals constantly every time Keith sits in a public place. To the extent there is a difference, it is one of degree. I don't say, *Keith Moon attempts to harm dst*. I attack her and fail because of the way the system works and because of her devotion to learning how best to use it; Keith is not the weakest fighter in the game, but being an alt and an easygoing one at that, has not devoted the same amount of time and energy to sharpening his combat skills to the extent of a Burns, a Jtz Champion, or a dst. You can say, "oh, that is your choice," but it is not much of a choice if my alternative is to abandon Tarquinus and/or spend a fair amount of time in sanctuaries. No: the game is set up to work a certain way, and by playing it I agree to abide by the "laws of nature" in this world. If there happens to be a quasi-lethal scripted item in the game, or six, or twelve, that can incapacitate a character for a week or more, I call that a [i]risk[/i]: danger, yes, but also opportunity. Storytelling is much easier and more satisfying when risks are higher. Will a powerful thing be abused? Yes. Always. Invariably. No matter what it is. I still play the game.

I do not fear the proliferation of such items as the stone dagger. I wish there were more like it. And as a man who has spent a good bit of the past two decades playing [i]Call of Cthulhu[/i], I wish there were items and situations in MD that could kill characters [b]permanently[/b]. Frankly, I don't see that happening in MD. I take what I find, and as a player and a quest designer, I make the best of it. I have not found discussions of "[x] should not be like it is" to be helpful to this community. People tend to agree, often at the top of their voices, and Mur goes along and does his thing anyway. That's the reality of it, and I accept MD for the flawed but beautiful, unique jewel it is.

[b]Edit in response to Firs:[/b] Yes, I agree that such things are clearly intended for the use of roleplay, as are many of the spells in the wish shop. If we could stop them being abused, wouldn't we? I have enough faith in Mur to think anything egregiously abused will eventually be rectified and/or policed.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Tarquinus

[Firsanthalas]

With respect Tarq, killing characters permanently would seem like a good way to also kill MD permanently. I can't see people taking too kindly to having their character killed and losing all the creatures and features that they paid for go in the bin. I know I would be looking for a refund if that were the case. I also think, that given that some people pay to support the game, while others don't this in particular would get real nasty, real quick.

[Tarquinus]

I understand, Firs, and I agree. I was merely giving voice to a personal preference to mortality in RPGs.

[Firsanthalas]

Fair enough, but unlike pen and pencil RPCs (and even some online ones) there are other factors at play here. In other RPGs items are merely something on a piece of paper and you don't have real money involved (I know there is sometimes, but you get the idea. People can spend lots of money on tokens and creatures in MD). There needs to be consideration that while something is possible, it does not make it right.

[Sharazhad]

[quote name='awiiya' date='16 June 2010 - 03:47 AM' timestamp='1276652867' post='61969']
What you seem to be suggesting is that we of the community, when doing anything, must ask anybody who will be affected by the action before acting.

Examples: Before killing someone, you must make sure they know something is happening. Before tying them down, make sure to say *tries to tie down personx*.

I agree that in the case of something "imaginary" (lacking in-game support) it is necessary and polite to make sure that all parties in an action are in agreement. If I were to cast a spell I didn't have on somebody, I would make sure that they were going to play along before I did it.

In the case of a game mechanic, such as spells, items, etc, I think it is perfectly acceptable for someone to act without the permission of another. We jail people without asking them whether they want to be jailed, and I think it's fine to kill them without asking as well. If the game gives you the power to do something then everybody else has to abide by that. The only set of rules we ALL have to obey are the ones that are hard coded. The social rules, which is the majority of roleplay, are best left to group consensus.

I've been criticized before for casting a GoE spell on someone without asking, and people have called me rude for doing so. It is within my power, and so I feel no guilt, and so perhaps I am deserving of their criticism. However, I still hold that if someone is given the power to enforce their actions, it is not in poor "manners" to act on their desires without asking.

That is what this conversation boils down to: what is the proper etiquette of roleplaying? In my case, I do not think casting spells without asking is rude. I do think that using asterisks to perform actions that are not hardcoded is rude. That is a line I draw, though I can see how you would draw a vastly different line. I will maintain my belief, whether or not it is considered rude.

Awi
[/quote]

[color="#2e8b57"][i]( Im in a bit of a warzone at the moment so Im gonna make this quick)
Casting spells is a bit different to killing. Casting spells changes a persons game play for a few minutes which spice things up a bit. Killing someone changes gameplay for days.
That at least requires someones consent. Which was my whole point, but unfortunately it was taken the personally/wrong way. It not coddling to say: "hey listen we're doing and RP which is gonna kill you and put you off game for a few days. Would that be alright?"

Assumption was made that Mya would just be ok with it - which lucky for you she was (or perhaps it was intended that way), had she demanded to be brought back to life, the RP would have been screwed.

I appreciate that creativity had been made and that the RP was successful. But I dont think a trend should be set where others can go around killing people just because it happened in Tarq's RP and Mya was ok with it.
[/i][/color]

[dst]

And now a word from someone who attempted to participate in the quest but was shut up after the first post.

The quest was a success (at least from the point of view of some) JUST because Mya played along. She is the perfect subject. She never says no, she obeys anyone that knows how to tell her to do things or her leaders. She's the ideal "puppet" (sorry Mya but you are).

I have to agree with Z:if this would have been played on me, I doubt something good would have come out of it. And this is probably the case for most of the players.
Nobody in his/her right mind (except Mya) would have agreed to this WITHOUT knowing it in advance. Players usually have personalities (of course there are also some regrettable exceptions) and probably don't like to be (sorry for the phrasing) taken for a fool.

Using game mechanics is no excuse, at least in this case. Why? Cause I used the game mechanics to find who the killer is and what's the murder weapon. I posted on the forum and all the reactions were negative. Care to explain where's the difference between the 2 actions?

Z, this has not set a precedent. Because if you replicate the environment BUT using a different victim the chances for the quest to fail are huge. And I doubt something like this will be set in the future without asking the victim first. Cause it's rude. It's PLAIN rude.



ps:[spoiler]at least I got what I wanted:the WPs went also to people outside LR which means that my little rant had a bit of effect [/spoiler]

[Firsanthalas]

I think that is more than a little disingenuous to Mya, dst. I do think that her good nature was taken advantage of. But there is also that fact that had she complained, there didn't seem to be any obvious mechanism for her condition to be reveresed and she would have more than likely have been labeled a spoil sport by some. It is a poor situation to find yourself in. While you yourself may not have cared, she would. I don't think that is a character flaw, just a different type of personality and it is as you said why she was picked upon. I would also like to say that Mya does not simply do as she is told. I really think that is an insulting remark to make and not called for at all.
Couple this with the fact that certain people seem to think that the action against her was completely acceptable, her complaining would not necessarily made any difference to her situation at the time. It would more than likely have simply resulted in a forum flaming war, while she continued to be dead for some time. She opted to play along and get revived at the earliest opportunity. I think that was a nice thing of her to do and possibly not something I'd have done (I probably would have gone down the screaming blue murder avenue). She shouldn't be berated for being nice. If that is what the world is coming to, we have a serious problem.

[Shemhazaj]

[quote]That is what this conversation boils down to: what is the proper etiquette of roleplaying?[/quote]

[font="Book Antiqua"][color="#808080"]For me killing Mya was not acceptable. It was harmful in many ways. It destroyed whatever plans she had/might have had. Its very noble of her that she decided to play along and not make a problem, but I have spoken to her "off the record" and no she wasn't as happy about it as it was said here... She has great character and decided not to show her "other" feelings and I guess because she's such a nice person she was chosen to be harmed... sweet... :|

Second thing if it happened to me it'd destroy my character completely. People don't usually come back to life...

And the third thing. Just because we can or because things happen in RL should we allow quests that intend to harm or cause damage to people?
(not only characters, but also people sitting in front of the screen)
Let's say I'd make a quest "the first one who sends me a log of a battle with XXX where XXX started getting permanent stat damage gets a WP/drach/whatever"
I'm not even using precedence items, but somehow I doubt it's right...[/color][/font]

[dst]

We have a saying Firs: the head that bows will not be cut by the blade. This is Mya's case. She chose to act in a certain way which led the quest to success. Wasn't that the main goal? If the questers need to thank someone they should be thanking Mya. Without her "good nature" as you pointed out, none of this would have been possible.

Don't get me wrong:I did not post this to point out Mya's flaws (or virtues - you consider it a virtue and I consider it a flaw but we can discuss this in another topic ). I just wanted to point out that in my opinion the way the quest was started was rude. It was rude because the victim was not asked. It was rude because this incapacitate her for a while.Her luck were the torches. Without them I bet I would still see her ghost at GOE.
How can you do that to your own alliance colleague (alliance=all loreroot since I usually see all of you as one big, probably happy family)? How can you orchestrate such a rude thing when your role in the game is that of a mannered knight? (this was pointed to you Tarq)
Sorry but I can't get out of my mind the image of Mya with strings attached.

Luckily all ended well and most participants had lots of fun. But next time I expect more from Loreroot since you call yourselves MD's RPers



ps:Tarq, don't be afraid to name me when you talk about the "group of people in the game who seem to despise roleplaying" I can take a hit. I am a big girl

[Tarquinus]

I am not afraid to call you the current standard bearer for the anti-roleplaying faction, no, but it is a phenomenon I have observed since I first joined the game. It has always annoyed me. You are but the latest critic.

If you think Tarq's role is that of a mannered knight, you haven't gone far into his role. Do you care to? Almost certainly not. Do I care whether you care? No.

I did not feel your input in the quest was completely out of place, but I did feel that you were being antagonistic and clearly trying to shut down the thing before it even started. Had you continued to be involved, you would have been considered for a reward. You chose not to be. That was your choice. You will never convince me that the big bad roleplayers shut you down and made you go cry in a corner. You simply weren't interested, and said as much twice.

You consider the action rude? Is that a... scruple I see? Oh, no. My mistake. Just invective. carry on.

[Udgard]

I'm one of those who agrees that since they are allowed to do things by a game mechanic [u]specifically intended to allow them to do those things [/u], then they are allowed to do it without consent of the receiving party. Hey, if I am allowed to frog people at will, why shouldn't someone be allowed to do the same given they have the mechanic that was designed to allow that very thing?

However, my question would be, should such an ability with so much power to impact someone be freely accessible? Personally, I won't question the right of the item owner to use what he has, but I would question if item killing people should be freely available. If the item was made with Mur's consent, though, I'd assume that it is how he want it to be in MD, and I'll go along, I guess.

[Firsanthalas]

I agree with you wholeheartedly dst. It just felt that there was a bit of a jibe in there at Mya. And that felt wrong to me under the circumstances.
I would like to point out that it was her decision to 'cure' herself via the torches. And that at least, showed her unwillingness to simply remain in a condition imposed upon her. It might not seem like a lot, but I feel it is an important point to note. She may not have come out and made a big noise publicly, but it is unfair to say that she simply smiled and did as she was told. She did let the quest run and as you said, if she hadn't it would have been ruined. But she altered the terms slightly to suit her more, by getting herself restored to life. A subtle and maybe passive response perhaps, but anything more would most likely have destroyed the quest. As for the end of the quest, it appears that was affected by the actions of others. Perhaps something should also be said of that?

@ Udgard.
It isn't the same as a spell though is it? A spell has a limited duration. Turning someone into a frog lasts a relatively short time. The other person also has a chance to exact revenge of some sort. How does one restore the balance when there is one item that makes you dead? And dead is a permanent thing unless there is another item to restore you, or you can use another game mechanic to restore you.
Consider this. You pay credits toward the game. With those credits you purchase a shop creature. Now someone has an item that lets them steal that creature, or kill it permanently. Still no problem with the item being used on you, simply because it can be?

Edited June 16, 2010 by Firsanthalas

[Shemhazaj]

[font="Book Antiqua"][color="#808080"]one question.. if everything that's ok with game mechanics is allowed, why then are accounts with offensive names being deleted?
some things are just wrong and it doesn't matter if you can do it or not!!![/color][/font]

[Mya Celestia]

[color="#8B0000"][font="Palatino Linotype"]And now a word from the victim:

Anyone that thinks I just took being murdered without complaint didn't see my responses immediately after it happened. Though I am one that is slow to anger, it was immediate and apparent as soon as Mya was killed. It's a very different mental blow when one is killed outside the torch.

Keith was the first person I contacted because he was the only person awake that I had on any list that was at the gazebo. I asked him if anything was said or done in chat that I missed. I knew of a kill spell, but not a kill item. That was when he informed me what was happening. At first I was excited about it because it was something to liven the realm. Time changes emotions and there were a lot of changes behind the screen. Keith and several others will tell you how I was like while Mya was dead.

As for those that think I am simply a puppet and I know that more than dst thinks that way, you folks are sorely mistaken. Just because Mya is nice and good natured doesn't mean her user always is. I pick my battles. When Mya was killed, instead of whining, griping, or looking for blood, I started working (best I could being dead) at finding a way to revive Mya.

Did I take Mya being killed? Yes. Why? For the sake of MD. Not because I'm nice or a puppet or whatever people think. I did it for MD. I thought about the newbies that come through the Paper Cabin. I thought about how their first experience seeing someone dead. How would it look if someone labeled 'DEAD' was acting like they weren't? What sort of impression would that give? I tried very hard to look beyond myself though at times it was really hard.
We can sit here and debate the use of items until we're all blue in the face. Because Mya has something doesn't mean she uses it. In reality I have a gun. That doesn't mean I run around killing people. MD is different because there are no consequences for killing someone. Sure Mya could whine to Grido or someone to put the murderer in jail, but that doesn't mean she'd get it. It also doesn't mean that the item would be taken. If I shot someone in reality, I'd lose my gun. What I find more disturbing was if there was a revive item, nobody came forward with it. At the very least that person could have charged a huge amount to use the item.

What's done is done. It is in the past. Better to learn and grow than wallow in the pain of the incident. Come on, people, for the good of the realm, move on.[/font][/color]

[dst]

[quote name='Shemhazaj' date='16 June 2010 - 06:17 PM' timestamp='1276701466' post='62004']
[font="Book Antiqua"][color="#808080"]one question.. if everything that's ok with game mechanics is allowed, why then are accounts with offensive names being deleted?
[/color][/font]
[/quote]

Cause there are rules against it. As for items and killing players we have none. And to be honest I don't mind it. It's in the game? Yes. You can use it? Yes. Then use it. BUT don't go making a big fuss about it (aka quest that involves both RP and game mechanics).

Tarq:I am not the latest critic. I am one of the first and probably the one who does something about it. I don't just sit on my tail and rant
And forgive me for thinking your role is that of a mannered knight. It is not. It is just part of it. You play also the Casannova, the Puppet Master, the Spy, the <insert other roles in here cause I run out of ideas>.
To go far into your role? To see what? Your cheesy RP with some of the MD women and then you hiding under their skirts when you get caught saying that they made you do it? (remember you post where you "confessed" how some of the female players initiated you into cyber sex in MD?) I preferred to think of you as I said above and forget all the nasty stuff but seems you don't let me.


And why do you think I did not go into a corner and cry? Can't you see how sensible I am?
Now seriously:it's easy to say:"Had you continued to be involved, you would have been considered for a reward" AFTER the whole thing was over. But your reaction to my input was a bad one. If I would have continued I would have probably messed the whole thing. But that's not why I didn't and actually it's not important why I chose to stay out. There is a saying:"after the battle many heroes appear". After the quest you come and say things like this that neither me or you can prove. Let's just don't do it. It's an insult to my intelligence.

Fact is and remains:you succeeded cause you took advantage of a player's good nature.Congratz! I would probably have done the same BUT with one slight difference: I would have not tried to pose as the "good guy" who does good quests and mixes RP with game mechanics. Don't get me wrong: the main idea of the quest was good but the implementation sucked. I am not good at constructive criticism cause I usually use bats instead of velvet gloves but you're a smart boy and you'll know what I want to say (besides...my English has flaws and I might not always say what I want to say).

So...all in all good luck with your next RP+game mechanics quest! Hopefully I will have the time to participate.

Edited June 16, 2010 by dst

[pamplemousse]

Everyone seems to think that this whole thing was scripted and planned out, play-by-play from the beginning. It wasn't. Mya was killed and then people reacted as they saw fit; the major planning was in the battles, not the actions and re-actions of other people. Some reactions were awesome (Lightsage) some, sort of disappointing.

I was the one who chose Mya as the victim and I was the one who chose [b]not[/b] to ask for her permission. She was the most interesting person to have killed; she is not boring and flat, she is well loved, a prominent member of Loreroot and grown up and strong enough to deal with something of this nature. I never assumed she would be ok with it, it just happened to work out that she was gracious enough to play along, and for that I do thank her.

I chose the moment on purpose, first because it was the wedding night and second, because it was close to the torch competition beginning. I knew she would be revived on the 8th, regardless of what happened. So, her death was [b]never[/b] permanent and I told her what she had to do to come alive again.

[u]Z:[/u] Yes, the captivity was a farce, and I hoped for some more action, perhaps even a trip to jail. That, at least would have been sort of even. Death was forced on someone, so prison should be forced on the guilty ones. At least, that's the way it works in society, but we all know MD has its own set of mores.

[u]Dusty:[/u] I was looking forward to some antics from you, but alas, no antics. You are not as much of an outsider as I think you would like to be, and I know that you are not easy "shut up". I hoped you would be a part of this, but instead you chose to pretend to be affected by some perceived negativity over your first post (I was happy to see a strong showing from you with that post) when we all know that if you wanted to, you would have been a major force. You cast yourself as a villain, but I know your dirty little secret, you are actually a nice person.

[u]Firs:[/u] Again, she would have been revived on the 8th regardless of a "flaming forum war." It was not her willingness to play along that led to her being revived "at the earliest opportunity" and in fact, did you not have a hand in reviving her due to a suggestion that I made?

[u]Moving away from the asking permission aspect of things:[/u]

It is a slippery slope to argue that because I had Mya killed and did not ask for permission, that all of a sudden people will go around scripting items and killing willy-nilly or that an item will be created that can steal or kill a purchased creature. I know that there are people out there that would do those things, however, items like this should have a penalty and that was part of the point of this.

This item was created and given out to someone deemed responsible enough to use it. To argue that in the future, incredibly powerful items will be given out to anyone to use without repercussion or consideration of abuse is just sort of silly. I am sure there will be safety measures put in place and that those examples you mention will be studiously avoided. (As far as I know, items are still in testing and some kinks are being worked out, although, I could be way off base)

[u]On a sort of tangential side note:[/u]

I don't know what it means to "RP" and hadn't ever played any kind of online game before MD (I was actually researching something for a paper when I stumbled on it and got hooked by the artwork and stayed because of the people.) Pample is me if I were stuck in some magic land without knowledge of things like Power Rangers or oil spills or lawn mowers. She responds to things the way I would and says the things I would say. I'm sure this violates some kind of RP rule or etiquette, but whatever. I say that because I have never understood the distinction between "playing MD" and "roleplaying MD."

[Tarquinus]

[quote]Don't get me wrong: the main idea of the quest was good but the implementation sucked.[/quote]
dst, this is the only part of your post that is worth responding to, because it is accurate. Thank you for the feedback.

[b]Edited for clarity[/b]

Edited June 16, 2010 by Tarquinus

[Grido]

[quote name='Tarquinus' date='16 June 2010 - 12:21 PM' timestamp='1276687276' post='61986']to cede control of their personal characters' stories in the interest of the greater game.[/quote]

This may be off track here, but that sounds a whole lot like "For the greater good" and i dont think i need to explain why that's a bad thing to base your ideas off...

[dst]

[quote name='Tarquinus' date='16 June 2010 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1276706862' post='62009']
dst, this is the only part of your post that is worth responding to, because it is accurate. Thank you for the feedback.

[b]Edited for clarity[/b]
[/quote]

Actually Tarq my whole post is accurate but it shows you into a bad light so if you continue I might dig up some more dirt about you and you're not man enough to take it

And back on topic:
@Pamplemousse: so you were the Puppet Master . Niice. I am glad it was you. This shows that not men run MD . And this explains the lack of mannerism tarq showed. Just one piece of advice: next time choose a better lackey to run the show. It will benefit everyone greatly Good job girl!

[pamplemousse]

I think "lackey" is an incorrect term. Without his efforts, this event would have fallen flat on its face, which perhaps is what some would have preferred.

His energy, charisma, nerve and unshakable elegance are a consistent inspiration to me. I am no organizer, no planner; I just wing things most of the time. It was because of him that this was such an interesting event and dare I say, a success.