The GrumpyCat wrote:Other than that? Most of the warnings and 'outs' we have are more of a mechanical vareity. Slavery carries hefty warnings and information because it's a big mechanial decision. You can waver the No RP PvP rule sure, but that's not ANY sort of rp, not 'specific' sort of roleplay. After being raised from PvP you might be beaten, yelled at, summarily executed again, or given a big hug, an ice cream and told by mr GrimDeath he's terribly sorry, and it was all an awful misunderstanding.
I think this is a really important piece of text that should be highlighted way clearer. I've seen the rising attitude a lot that all bad things that happen to a character have to require some form of "Consent" behind them - Which is ridiculous. Even from those that are playing characters that are being overly egregious/confrontational at times. Roleplay is about reacting to events that happen to your character - It's not about pre-organising everything so it suits exactly what you want to do in your head. Everything that's -worst case- is covered by the rules anyway - so should never be brought up as a reason to not engage into things. It's a slippery slope fallacy. If you want to keep 100% control of what happens to your PC at all times, that's writing a story - And there's plenty of places you can do that.
In a potentially hostile environment - There are choices leading all the way up to the final PvP - which if I might add is all role-play. As a player you choose what your character says, their temperament, their belief system - their code/ethics. At all times you have had a choice as a player to stay, or to leave. Likewise in subdual - you have a choice - to stay or to give up.
Keep in mind that many players are actively crow-barring their RP to allow for other players to have the opportunity to not simply be sent to the wall. I play a Gnoll - His religious belief is to burn the world into oblivion. There is zero RP motivation to back up why he would choose to actively let someone go - rather than feasting on them, or sacrificing them to Yeenoghu. It's literally in the lore and if I played it like that - I would have zero reason to ever put sub-dual on in a hostile situation.
However I've done it and I'm sure others have as an OOC player decision to give others room to manouever in. So to see it just instantly just thrown back when players decide to use sub-dual as a means to simply just stand up and instantly remove themselves from a situation with zero dialogue or respect for what's happening to their character? It feels a little self absorbed and scoreboard mentality-ish.
If you're going to try to run away or escape because it's what your character would do - At least role-play it. I'm sure you'll get a much better response from people - Who are actively trying to engage with you than wordlessly heal potting to full and vanishing. That just leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths. - But keep in mind perhaps the person that has subdualled you is potentially not doing what -their- character would do to try and extend an olive branch out to you.
Ultimately though - This isn't any one persons story. Bad things happen to good adventurers. Story arcs are better with redemption/suffering/character building narratives. People remember the characters that show weakness and sides to them & actually engage/allow for other stories to develop - They just roll their eyes at the gigachads 10ft square jawed 6ft 10 monsters that never show weakness/fear/loss etc.