Death Amnesia - Bad wording, and feedback it needs to be stronger.

[Choofed]

Currently the death rules leave a lot to be desired as far as memory amnesia goes. People can still immediately run to the hub with a lot of leeway and say "I died on ice roads, surfacers are there."

As they currently stand, this is the official word on the memory issue.

https://wiki.nwnarelith.com/Rules

The wording of the rules says that, in paraphrase, "You are not allowed to know the actual PVP or anyone involved in it." But "You are allowed to know information leading up to your death, such as where you were and why you went there."

However, on this part of the wiki it says https://wiki.nwnarelith.com/Death

According to this, you can remember everyone involved at the scene however. You just cannot remember who struck the final blow.

As much as this rule says "Don't run into the town square and say X killed me", the wording means your character is still implicitly aware they were attacked by X person, you just don't know if they were the one who struck the final blow. Spyre clarifies 'hostilities', but is hostilities being used in the sense of mechanical hostility, verbal hostility or combat?

Overall, the wording on these rules on what you keep in memory is ineffective to handle the phenomena of preventing people respawning and identifying or notifying of people of their murder. You might not know you got shanked in an alleyway by Bob, but you know Bob was there with a knife threatening to shank you and then your memory loss happens. There is nothing stopping you going "I remember being in an alleyway with Bob and he threatened to stab me, I don't remember what happened next but he's a Pariah now because me having memory loss upsets me."

As much as some may wish for the DMs to enforce to the contrary, the wording of the rule does not support their efforts.

I can only recommend we reword the rule to have more effective wording.

In the quote below, I have written an alternative death memory loss rule for consideration.

When a character dies, they lose memories relating and leading up to their death as well as their time in their fugue plane. The effects on your memory from death are as follows:

• Characters do not remember anything related to the fugue or entering it. You know nothing of your encounters in the fugue even after respawning.

• Characters do not remember any participants in the roleplay and in the surrounding area leading up to their death.

• Characters do not remember conversations, names, or any information that they obtained in the roleplay that lead up to their death.

• Characters are allowed to remember why they entered a location where the roleplay started that led to their death.

Players are not permitted to write notes immediately before a hostile encounter to use as tools to bypass the memory restrictions of this rule. This does not include sending in game messenger services to alert allies.

If alarming people immediately after your death to your last remembered location would cause people to rush to that location, especially when participants may still be there, you are not allowed to do so.

Examples:

Situation 1: Player A enters into a location to go mining and encounters Player B. The two have a dispute about who may mine, and this leads to conflict where Player A dies. The only thing player A can remember is that he went to the location to mine ore and that he has woken up after likely dying.

Situation 2: Player C invites Player D to their house from the town square, but assassinates them by poisoning the food. Player D does not remember Player C’s involvement, and only remembers being in the town square and that he has woken up after likely dying. However, witnesses may remember that he was invited for dinner by C.

Situation 3: Player E has just died in a PVP encounter in ‘The big cave’, after encountering his sworn enemies. He is not allowed to run to his friends and say “I just died in the big cave, quickly, send everyone!”

If you have any questions, or are unsure of what you should or should not remember from an encounter, please contact a DM first before bringing that information into the roleplay environment.

[Amateur Hour]

Situation 2: Player C invites Player D to their house from the town square, but assassinates them by poisoning the food. Player D does not remember Player C’s involvement, and only remembers being in the town square and that he has woken up after likely dying. However, witnesses may remember that he was invited for dinner by C.

I will need to try to find the thread where this is discussed, but I believe this is an incorrect interpretation. Character D could remember that they went to dinner at Character C's house, but won't remember that they died from poisoned food. There's still ambiguity because Character D would remember the same amount if they died because they were mugged on the way home.

As I recall, if Characters A and B meet up in the Nomad and chat for several hours, then Character B stabs Character A in the back once they leave out the back door, Character A is still allowed to remember that they spent hours peaceably with Character B.

[AstralUniverse]

The spirit of the rule is that you're not supposed to respawn after death and go tell people who killed you. The exact details of what you remember or dont remember outside of that one specific thing is, to my knowledge, intentionally vague. If someone is being a cheeseball, report them.

[Choofed]

Situation 2: Player C invites Player D to their house from the town square, but assassinates them by poisoning the food. Player D does not remember Player C’s involvement, and only remembers being in the town square and that he has woken up after likely dying. However, witnesses may remember that he was invited for dinner by C.

I will need to try to find the thread where this is discussed, but I believe this is an incorrect interpretation. Character D could remember that they went to dinner at Character C's house, but won't remember that they died from poisoned food. There's still ambiguity because Character D would remember the same amount if they died because they were mugged on the way home.

As I recall, if Characters A and B meet up in the Nomad and chat for several hours, then Character B stabs Character A in the back once they leave out the back door, Character A is still allowed to remember that they spent hours peaceably with Character B.

I don't think you've understood the point of the thread. I've intentionally said that the rules as they are are unsatisfactory and this would be a rewording and strengthening of the rule.

This would come with associated new rulings.

The spirit of the rule is that you're not supposed to respawn after death and go tell people who killed you. The exact details of what you remember or dont remember outside of that one specific thing is, to my knowledge, intentionally vague. If someone is being a cheeseball, report them.

The spirit of the rules is nice, but rules having defined intentions means we don't have wishy washy rulings that swing all over the place depending on the DM you have on the day. The wording should be clear cut, because right now there is nothing saying your character cannot know you were with X the entire time, they threatened to kill you, and then you died.

[Peachoo]

According to this, you can remember everyone involved at the scene however. You just cannot remember who struck the final blow.

As much as this rule says "Don't run into the town square and say X killed me", the wording means your character is still implicitly aware they were attacked by X person, you just don't know if they were the one who struck the final blow. Spyre clarifies 'hostilities', but is hostilities being used in the sense of mechanical hostility, verbal hostility or combat?

Overall, the wording on these rules on what you keep in memory is ineffective to handle the phenomena of preventing people respawning and identifying or notifying of people of their murder. You might not know you got shanked in an alleyway by Bob, but you know Bob was there with a knife threatening to shank you and then your memory loss happens. There is nothing stopping you going "I remember being in an alleyway with Bob and he threatened to stab me, I don't remember what happened next but he's a Pariah now because me having memory loss upsets me."

As much as some may wish for the DMs to enforce to the contrary, the wording of the rule does not support their efforts.

Okay, so this is where I believe the Death rules, the Be Nice Rule, and the Rules of Engagement all come into play together.
Under rules of engagement:

• Treat death with respect.
• Use good judgement. Like mentioned previously, we go by the spirit of the rule and not the letter of it. If you’re being mean or intentionally difficult and playing by technicality instead of what’s fair for the other player, we’ll act on that.

Under the Be Nice Rule:

• This means that we expect players to be nice to each other out of character.
  Also under the be nice rule:
• The Dungeon Masters are to be considered the final authority in any dispute, question, or issue that comes up, and by playing on Arelith, you agree to abide by their decisions. If there is a dispute with a Dungeon Master's ruling, or if you feel you've been dealt with unfairly, OBEY THE RULING at the time, and then contact the Head Dungeon Master either through e-mail or a private message on the Arelith forums so the situation can be resolved. Ignoring the Dungeon Master is grounds for suspension. Intentionally lying is also.

So basically....
While, yes, you can remember what you were doing up until your death.... is it really within the 'spirit' of the law to immediately just 'figure out' who killed you based on what you are technically allowed to remember before the hostility? Per Choofed example, are you contributing to the roleplay narrative by immediately ratting out surfacers on the ice roads? Or are you abusing a rule in order to make sure the people who killed your pc will get punished for doing so?

The rules state that we should be respecting the spirit of the rules. I believe this isn't respecting the spirit of the rule plain and simple. Not everyone is going to win every engagement, and while it might not be fun to win.... that's not really what Arelith is about. It's about roleplay, story, and narrative... not who 'won'. Being a sore 'loser' isn't being nice oocly, nor is it respecting the death your character just experienced.

I think we should all strive to forward what is best for the story narrative, and strive to keep a separation from ooc and ic. It's understandable to be upset when you lose in pvp, but it is always going to be a real possibility. So when it does happen, treat the loss with respect.

Unfortunately, I know people will try to use the letter of the law to explain breaking the spirit of it. And it does happen. That is when you need to speak with the DM team. And if the outcome isn't what you agree with, follow the Be Nice rule/Listen to dms rule and appeal it.

I do not know if changing the rules wording will actually change how things are when it comes to respecting death. Ultimately, this isn't a wording issue, but a behavior issue. I think that even if the wording is changed, people who intend to keep this 'i win' mentality will still use it in another way to cheese or whatever else. And unfortunately, that's a problem that the team will have to just end up handling eventually. While I agree with a lot of your points, I just don't think it'll be solved that easily.

If you take a look at the Arelith Rules page on the wiki.... it is literally pages long. When I first started playing on the server... there were 10 or 12 rules. That's it. Short and simple. Now there's massive paragraphs discussing very specific situations that have had to be added over the years because of poor behavior. Which absolutely sucks, but it's definitely a more complicated issue I think.

[Choofed]

So basically....
While, yes, you can remember what you were doing up until your death.... is it really within the 'spirit' of the law to immediately just 'figure out' who killed you based on what you are technically allowed to remember before the hostility? Per Choofed example, are you contributing to the roleplay narrative by immediately ratting out surfacers on the ice roads? Or are you abusing a rule in order to make sure the people who killed your pc will get punished for doing so?

The rules state that we should be respecting the spirit of the rules. I believe this isn't respecting the spirit of the rule plain and simple. Not everyone is going to win every engagement, and while it might not be fun to win.... that's not really what Arelith is about. It's about roleplay, story, and narrative... not who 'won'. Being a sore 'loser' isn't being nice oocly, nor is it respecting the death your character just experienced.

In the instance of death amnesia as it is quoted on the Arelith Wiki page it explicitly states the intention of the rule was to attempt to stop this behavior. But with the wording surrounding the rule being so vague and open it invites people playing other silly games with memories and testing the 'original spirit'.

"This is in effort to treat death more seriously across the server and to remove the undesired effect of people respawning and immediately telling others the identity of the person who killed them. "

Better worded, clearer cut rules have better 'spirits' behind them. Because it is clearer what is and is not allowed, instead of vague statements like "Please be nice." We have seen again that the rules will deminish to the minimal permissability, so we must set the bar on permisability.

I think we should all strive to forward what is best for the story narrative, and strive to keep a separation from ooc and ic. It's understandable to be upset when you lose in pvp, but it is always going to be a real possibility. So when it does happen, treat the loss with respect.

Unfortunately, I know people will try to use the letter of the law to explain breaking the spirit of it. And it does happen. That is when you need to speak with the DM team. And if the outcome isn't what you agree with, follow the Be Nice rule/Listen to dms rule and appeal it.

I do not know if changing the rules wording will actually change how things are when it comes to respecting death. Ultimately, this isn't a wording issue, but a behavior issue. I think that even if the wording is changed, people who intend to keep this 'i win' mentality will still use it in another way to cheese or whatever else. And unfortunately, that's a problem that the team will have to just end up handling eventually. While I agree with a lot of your points, I just don't think it'll be solved that easily.

While we can desire all we want and make claims as rules following players for others to obey them in spirit and actual wording, they won't. They will as they go through the stages of processing loss in an encounter start looking for methods which are permissable, and as it stands your character is equipped with the following information on their death:

• Not who was in the PVP, but everyone just before the first ward flew.
• Everything they said.
• Where it happened.

While we might have a loose wording saying "this is to prevent square running" because they were aware of that information and knew they had it in character they simply tried more subtle methods to achieve the same outcomes because ultimately, they had all the information they needed to still point the finger available to their character.

It's not nice. But we should be clearer, in the rules so there is no question, that when they do this they have breached what they should know. That their character doesn't "know this information but shouldn't use it" but instead doesn't know it.

Because that's the issue. Right now, characters still keep all the information they need to be able to exceptionally easy point a finger, and the rules permit it.

The answer is simple. Let them stop having the information, because their character wasn't allowed to use it anyways. The fact that you cannot silence someone on an infiltration, or the likes, and they'll always know you did it because even if you killed them they still remember it was you at the chest or whatever is silly.

And that's explicitly what the rules permit.

[AstralUniverse]

The spirit of the rules is nice, but rules having defined intentions means we don't have wishy washy rulings that swing all over the place depending on the DM you have on the day. The wording should be clear cut, because right now there is nothing saying your character cannot know you were with X the entire time, they threatened to kill you, and then you died.

This is exactly the definition of being a cheeseball, and I'd report this.

You are not supposed to know who killed you. Period. You may have spent an entire day with someone and they're the only person you remember, but you do not remember the exact circumstance of your death and you cannot know that person is the killer. Your character also doesnt necessarily know how long of a time passed between their last memory and their death. They could have ran into more strangers in the meanwhile. As long as your recollection of the events does not include the identity of the person who killed you and the exact circumstances who would easily lead to the conclusion that this person must be the killer, it's all good and doesnt create awkward paradoxical situations in the story where one person can directly or indirectly point to their killer.

[Choofed]

This is exactly the definition of being a cheeseball, and I'd report this.

I agree, it should be reportable, and we should make the rules line up with the intention and make sure they never had the impression they had this information to use.

You are not supposed to know who killed you. Period. You may have spent an entire day with someone and they're the only person you remember, but you do not remember the exact circumstance of your death and you cannot know that person is the killer.

As the rules can currently be read, you can permissably know who you were with before the combat starts. You even remember what they said, so while you're saying this, this simply isn't the case with the current literal reading of the rules which is why I've proposed the change.

Your character also doesnt necessarily know how long of a time passed between their last memory and their death. They could have ran into more strangers in the meanwhile. As long as your recollection of the events does not include the identity of the person who killed you and the exact circumstances who would easily lead to the conclusion that this person must be the killer, it's all good and doesnt create awkward paradoxical situations in the story where one person can directly or indirectly point to their killer.

And yet in the literal interpretation of the rules as current we have the paradox where you can have a memory that leaves you with an exceptionally good idea on who it might be. The guy who, momemnts before combat, threatened to stab you to death. Which leads us back to my original example.

You might not know you got shanked in an alleyway by Bob, but you know Bob was there with a knife threatening to shank you and then your memory loss happens. There is nothing stopping you going "I remember being in an alleyway with Bob and he threatened to stab me, I don't remember what happened next but he's a Pariah now because me having memory loss upsets me."

What are you argueing here? Are we argueing the same point? I mean I agree people shouldn't remember all these key details that make it strikingly obvious who did it.

Lets make the rules line up with our expectations.

[Morgy]

It should be remembered like a very hazy dream, that gets harder to recall the more you think about it. Blurred faces and voices, nothing close to concrete. Characters can have vague recollections of the time up to the event.

And yes 'time' is vague, because it has to be. There's never going to be a 'you can remember X minutes' before the event, because no one knows when to start that clock and it'd be daft. People would also just 'play' that time limit, to make sure they got all their hostile RP within the 'forgettable' time limit, if they wanted to get around it.

Use judgement to give benefit of the doubt to the other party involved and if you can't do that, probably just say nothing at all. It's not possible to define these rules much more than they are. It's like the 'RP before pvp' rule, it's not strictly defined how much to RP, but if you repeatedly act in bad faith you'll be punished.

[Dr. B]

I agree with the OP. The wording is inconsistent. Those are two different rules and the wiki editors need to bring the description in the Death article into line with the Rules article.

[Morgy]

I agree with the OP. The wording is inconsistent. Those are two different rules and the wiki editors need to bring the description in the Death article into line with the Rules article.

The DMs will have to confirm which is the right ruling, then it will be modified!

[Inordinate]

The rules article was recently rewritten/updated by DM Vivec. I have alerted him to this thread and upon confirmation that the entire article is complete we will update the death page accordingly to what the DM team dictates it should be.

[AstralUniverse]

I dont understand what's wrong with this

You are allowed to know information leading up to your death but not the person who struck the final blow. This is in effort to treat death more seriously across the server and to remove the undesired effect of people running up after respawning and stating someone just killed them.

This clearly states, that no matter how you twist things around and how you deliberately try to bend the outcome in your favor, you are simply not allowed to know who killed you or even that someone killed you. I dont understand why it needs to be more simplified (and limiting) than this. Simply dont be a cheeseball and it's all good. If there are some isolated cases of people being cheeseballs, report them and move on.

[PowerWord Rage]

Circumstances will still happen because players are inexperienced to such matters.

Honestly, It's not difficult for other players who listened to realize that he/she should not actually remember the details leading to his/her death. [ The reason why i wrote 'should not remember' is because usually such IC reports are usually so directly clear cut that the memory is too precise for it to be vague. Experienced and good Role-players can build good story around such details but such, is usually quite rare imho. ]

ICly, it'll be good faith for these experienced players to perhaps question these players who died ICly on whether they're hallucinating and/or other methods. It's honestly not difficult to guess that said player had immediately report after respawning.

While the fault may lies with the player who respawned and immediately report to other PC on the situation leading to his/her death, it takes more than just one player for any situation to escalate.

[Amateur Hour]

Circumstances will still happen because players are inexperienced to such matters.

Honestly, It's not difficult for other players who listened to realize that he/she should not actually remember the details leading to his/her death. [ The reason why i wrote 'should not remember' is because usually such IC reports are usually so directly clear cut that the memory is too precise for it to be vague. Experienced and good Role-players can build good story around such details but such, is usually quite rare imho. ]

ICly, it'll be good faith for these experienced players to perhaps question these players who died ICly on whether they're hallucinating and/or other methods. It's honestly not difficult to guess that said player had immediately report after respawning.

While the fault may lies with the player who respawned and immediately report to other PC on the situation leading to his/her death, it takes more than just one player for any situation to escalate.

This right here.

I feel like the biggest problem with death isn't the wording of the rule on the wiki but people simply not following the rule or believing it to say something different than what it was. The problem with the issue this rule governs - not the rule itself - is that once someone breaks it, there's no way to undo the damage; the story will spread. It's like people metagaming disguises. I did propose a suggestion to put a reminder of whatever the CURRENT death rules are in all the "leaving the fugue plane" prompts, but it's currently still in the Pending spot.

[Power Word, Haste]

I agree with the OP, and

The rules article was recently rewritten/updated by DM Vivec. I have alerted him to this thread and upon confirmation that the entire article is complete we will update the death page accordingly to what the DM team dictates it should be.

thanks!

[Hazard]

Just have some text pop-up saying "You don't remember stuff!"
Lots of players just don't know and then it's too late. Have a script tell them, or even just a sign/obelisk once they're there. You all went without this rule for long enough that it's going to take a nudge to get it back to being part of the server culture. Currently it isn't.

[DM Vivec]

• Characters do not remember the fugue or know that they entered it. Conversations in the fugue can not be remembered.

• You are allowed to know information leading up to your death. For example, Bob remembers that Johnathen wanted to go on a walk through the Minmir Forest. But he can't remember anything else.

• You are allowed to remember the specific reason you were traveling to a location. For example: Bob remember than Johnathen wanted to go on a walk through the Minmir Forest. They were were wanting to collect some softwood. But he can't remember anything else.

• Bob and Johnathen are attacked by Timothy and Carl, killing them in the Minmir Forest. Bob and Johnathen do not remember being attacked or killed by Timothy and Carl.

• Bob and Johnathen do not remember the people in the area at the time of their death. For example, there may have been a witness or travelers who were nearby when Timothy and Carl struck the vicious blow. They do not remember either their attackers, the witness or the travelers.

• The witness saw what happened. Both the witness and the murderers are allowed to do what they want with this information. This includes informing Bob and Johnathen of what happened.

• Because neither Bob or Johnathen know what happened, they are not allowed to seek revenge on their death and neither are they allowed to tell anyone about it, as they do not remember that it happened. This means they should not write a letter and leave it on the message board or request others go to where they attacked and look for clues, neither should they mention the witness or the travelers who they saw.

• This includes resurrection and respawn, the memory loss rule applies.

• When in doubt, remember less. If you are uncertain about if you should or shouldn't, the rule of thumb is don't. You will never be in the wrong by remembering less.

--

the above has been drafted as a proposal for both the rules page / death page, i'm leaving it here for community opinion on whether or not it makes sense and can be read / interpreted easily

these ruling update will also accompany an update to another part of the rules section which was acidentally left out which is that resurrection should not happen in pvp

[Amateur Hour]

For clarity on the following situation:

Say Bill and Joe meet up in the Nomad. They talk there for literal hours - maybe it's a business deal, maybe it's nefarious plotting. After hours of talking, Joe decides to betray Bill and "suddenly" (but not so suddenly to be a rulebreak) decides to stab Bill and kill him.

Does Bill remember anything of what was discussed in that hours-long meeting, or that the meeting was had?

[Curve]

The closest thing to a by the book’s answer is: Joe can remember the meeting with Bill but not Bill stabbing him.

[DM Vivec]

Bob remembers that he was going to go to the Nomad to talk about business with Timothy.

You are allowed to remember the specific reason you were traveling to a location. For example: Bob remember than Johnathen wanted to go on a walk through the Minmir Forest. They were were wanting to collect some softwood. But he can't remember anything else.

However, Bob does not remember anything that happened in the Nomad.

Bob and Johnathen are attacked by Timothy and Carl, killing them in the Minmir Forest. Bob and Johnathen do not remember being attacked or killed by Timothy and Carl.

Bob and Johnathen do not remember the people in the area at the time of their death. For example, there may have been a witness or travelers who were nearby when Timothy and Carl

In the example you've provided, even remembering that there was a business discussion which factually took place would possibly implicate Timothy as being responsible for the murder.

• We were having a discussion on something important.

• Timothy was absolutely there, meaning the character can not deny his involvement or influence the narrative to his favor.

• Bob's player may be pushing information that he shouldn't necessarily have access to such as suddenly deciding that not only was Timothy there, but the conditions he originally intended on giving Timothy for their business arrangement were very inappropriate and that the implication is that Timothy would be angry.

There is no reason for Bob to remember anything about the discussion or that Timothy was present or that even certainly if he arrived in the Nomad. He remembers traveling to the Nomad. The spirit of the rule is that the murderer should have the narrative advantage over his victim if the attack was carried out skillfully. Bob, as a player, should gracefully concede his loss and that he was murdered. Perhaps Bob will never find out what happened to him. There is no reason for the victim to be involved in his own murder investigation or be able to offer useful insights outside of a vague, general scope.

[DM Vivec]

For further clarity after some internal discussion, these changes will be reflected in the wording once it's updated on the wikipedia:

In my writing, I use the word 'area'. This specifically means 'map'. If you were in the Hub, every time I use the word 'area' I am specifically referring to the entire map of the Hub. If it is the Nomad, it is the entire map of the Nomad. The wording will be updated to reflect that.

[Rei_Jin]

So, once one enters a map and hostility commences, anything that happened on that map, or until the point of death and then resurrection, is not remembered. Even if Bob and Johnathan have a chase across Arelith, once hostility commences, that's the point where memory loss kicks in for the map, and any subsequent actions.

That's pretty easy to work with, thank you.

i'll add this clarity in the wikipedia update as well, i think it's worded concisely that makes sense

[DM Vivec]

forgive me rei_jin.. i edited your post.. i have brought great shame upon myself

[Rei_Jin]

lol, that's fine