The weight of Death.

[Tomato]

We all know that only the player can decide what effect death will have on them, in this post I will share my 2 cents on it. Since "death" and "true death/leaving the island" have different meanings in the game, this is what I take into account after PvP.

Of course, it's all personal, but it might be of some use to others.
"How important" might not be related just to friendship or love, if an arch nemesis got hold of your character, tortured and killed them, I'd say that also counts as important.
For effects, it could be to avoid the area for far longer than just the prescribed 24 hours, fear the character, change something in your own character's outlook, or a thousand other things. Playing impact is fun. Letting others have an effect on your character is also fun, I think.
"Well played" is a loose definition, I define it by use of punctuation, number of words, and emotional involvement in IC and not in OOC.
Opinions? discuss!

[Kreydis]

Right, time to get the popcorn. This is one of those issues that inevitably turns to players shouting at each other about who's more right.

Edit:

I might as well toss my two pennies in here.

Death as a whole on Arelith means very little until you decide it should mean something. That also means people can choose to not care at all if the death means anything to them. So a lot of the times it can feel very arbitrary when someone dies, or the next time it's a gut-wrenching night of horrors.

One of the greatest lines that literally made me quit for a good four years was "Why are you so upset? She's just dead." I was a bit sensitive when that line made me quit. While I can appreciate the logic of us literally resurrecting everyone left and right like it's no problem. It shows that the server as a whole is desensitized to the concept of death. But at the same time, I think that's fine. I don't want to have mechanics that are intended to punish the player for a lack of knowledge, a lack of metagaming, a lack of powerbuilding.

At the end of the day, every player is here for fun. Not necessarily the fun of others, but themselves, and it means different things to everyone.

All in all? Just be nice to each other OOCly, which doesn't mean your character has to be pleasant.

[Madgamer13]

In my opinion, death is a narrative set around themes of change. Random pvp induced death is likely 'realistic', but we're not 'living' Arelith as if it is reality, are we?

I think the only primary factor in when 'true' death should occur to a character on Arelith is as part of a broader and more interactive narrative where the death in question means something to more than the immediate player of the character.

'Death' as is suffered by PvP conflicts hold the least potential for narrative, although this is largely dependant on how players receive the deaths of their characters, and how other players interpret a death inflicted on another character. Given how character builds work on NWN, it is very, very easy to just obliterate another character with a mere click, which tends to boil pvp fights into simple numbers. Unfortunately, that ability to obliterate other characters isn't 'fun' for everyone, and if someone takes OOC issue with the RP that led up to it, it can potentially influence IC behaviours if a player has lost any trust they had OOCly with the player that obliterated their character.

This presents a very specific problem. Some of best RP is done cooperatively between players with the characters in question, and PvP induced 'deaths' force a break in that cooperation when not done under a circumstance of full consent and expectant, divergant outcomes. What's worse, a PvP death followed with a corpsebash tends to break the flow of RP entirely, and prevents follow up RP from occuring easily.

As such, when discussing the 'weight' of death on arelith, you also need to consider the OOC impacts on the player behind the character, as being 'killed' also forces a particular experience upon the player themselves in addition to the character they play.

[Phaesporia]

Not to be pessimistic but it doesn't really matter because it only means what other people want it to mean. You have a range between people who kill their character off the first time they die to people who play the same character for 5+ years and never kill them off, no matter how many times they've died in pvp or received a "roleplay death." It's all relative. Even a "good death" or "roleplay death" are relative. I personally don't really see the point in bringing this topic up because it only ends in arguing and a locked thread, only to come back up again X months later.

[Rayla]

I don't much focus on a character death until it's the final death. Everyone is different and has their own idea of how to play it out. Never will everyone do it the same way.

I personally don't really see the point in bringing this topic up because it only ends in arguing and a locked thread, only to come back up again X months later.

Because we always have new people join that hasn't read the other 30 topics about it and it's still nice to see new ideas as some folks may change how they handle it after reading a post. You may have seen and read 30 different topics about this, but the folks that joined last week haven't. You might be tired of reading it over and over, but they aren't. I don't think repeat threads should be shunned because old timers have seen it a hundred times.

[lakhena]

There's sometimes another factor in the equation, Tomato, when we're talking about potential permanent death as an effect of PVP, that I include out of consideration, and that is -- does the other player want to accept the consequences for a permanent death?

I've been in incidences of well RP'd conflict leading up to a beautiful death scene, only to be told by the other player that they really don't want to be IC or OOC responsible for the permanent death of my PC. Or they enjoy the conflict and don't want to see the PC die just yet or what have you. I've always had mixed feelings about how to deal with that sort of situation, because I strongly believe in RP consequences and sometimes, a good death scene just doesn't come your way that often! But in the end, I tend to go with the other players' preference.

I do, for the most part, agree with the formula though.

I've had some not so exciting PVP here that wasn't preceded by RP and definitely not followed up by it either. Just the slam, bam, now you don't remember this incident type of situation that I find altogether disappointing. I have decided to treat those incidences as any other encounter of running into NPCs that overwhelm you. My PC won't remember much, but she'll have some anxieties associated with the place where she died.

As a note to other players out there, I do welcome PvP and don't mind getting smushed (my builds really do suck). My preference, however, is that we do have some background context or RP for me to play off of later.

[Phaesporia]

old timers

I've played NWN for like two years, please do not refer to me as an "old timer" first of all, and secondly, I'm merely stating that I don't see the point in bringing it up since the OP has seen threads like this dissolve into exactly what I mentioned before.

[Lady Astray]

Despite the rules of engagement most PVP I see or hear of on the server boils down to really stupid simple reasons like, "You're the wrong race!" or "My lawful/good character is a complete jerk so they can do what they want to your good aligned character." On the other hand I've seen some really meaningful character deaths that had absolutely nothing to do with PVP but had great story arcs leading up to them. One important thing you should ask yourself is if forcing death on someone else's character is really doing anything to create a good story. If your justification can be summed up in one line your RP probably isn't as good as you think it is.

I see the words change/conflict thrown around a lot because some of you were told in your creative writing classes that they are essential to the story. But there are plenty of great stories out there where the change/conflict had nothing to do with violence or two people/armies fighting. Take Charlotte's Web for example, the change/conflict comes from the mortality of the spider Charlotte and her positive interactions with WIlbur the pig. Nowhere in that story do you have two armies clashing blades but it is still considered a classic and has had animated films made about it. Charlotte's death probably has a lot more weight to it than any of the orcs slain in Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit for example.

I find most players will give about as good as they get. If you put forth the effort to build up an epic story arc that actually allows their character to be involved, rather than walking up and saying, "Die drow/elf!" then they will usually play along.

For the record I have yet to die in a PVP encounter despite being in a few PVP events and situations. This is mostly because I try to actually avoid death like a real person would instead of using my character as a vehicle for creating "change/conflict." When I did die in a PVE event I role played my character being very upset over it and waited in the fugue to be revived. Since then my character has been very grateful toward the characters who brought her back to life. Given a good enough story arc that I felt was a proper conclusion to my character, where they willingly sacrificed their life for a greater cause, I would probably roll them. But if a gang of baddies walks up, says one line, and proceeds to corpse bash me because "they're evil," I'll probably just say a fairy in the woods revived me or something lame like that.

[Sockss]

The only way death will receive any enforced weight IC is if it becomes a rule that you do not remember the fugue and the events leading up to your death.

This is why you see variable weight placed on dying, fearless characters and frustrating PvP aftermath.

While this is 'sort of' enforced with RPR and many people could go on and on about how this rule is probably single-handedly the biggest thing stifling a better RP environment, the team have made it clear time and time again this isn't going to change.

So there's really no point to a discussion and, as before, it will devolve into arguing specific PvP instances and justification thereof, airing grievances and, apparently, sweeping statements decrying racism in FR (You can very much be the wrong race, ugh).

[Rayla]

old timers

I've played NWN for like two years, please do not refer to me as an "old timer" first of all, and secondly, I'm merely stating that I don't see the point in bringing it up since the OP has seen threads like this dissolve into exactly what I mentioned before.

It was a general reference, chill. Secondly, yes I read your post and quoted it since it was a statement in question form

[Basementfellow]

I'm really not sure why we moved away from the old fugue rules. It's so horrifically cheesy hearing allusions to having been killed, it honestly kills ME a little every time.

[CosmicOrderV]

Agreed.

[Lady Astray]

(You can very much be the wrong race, ugh).

Not arguing against that. What I'm saying is you can still create meaningful RP leading up to the part where you corpse bash them. If you're just typing two words and going hostile, you can't really blame the other party for not writing a 9000 word essay on the forums about why they rolled their character because you're a God at PVP and your character is the best.

Like I said, most people will give as good as they get. Give them a chance to shine in RP and they will usually take it and give you due credit for your efforts. The idea of forcing PERMANENT, IRREVOCABLE consequences on other players because of race or opposing alignment is a lot like playing a rogue in a tabletop game and stealing from your party members because "lol I'm a rogue." I'm sure most of us have heard stories where someone did this and didn't get invited to the next session. It is just poor gamesmanship and likely not going to get you a Kudos thread from the opposing team.

As for some rules about not remembering the Fugue or events leading up to your death, I'd agree with that. It is rather cheesy when someone walks into your settlement and is all like, "lol so and so just killed me go hunt them down gais."

[MoreThanThree]

Death is a spook.

[good man of god]

Death is a spook.

[Nitro]

I'm really not sure why we moved away from the old fugue rules. It's so horrifically cheesy hearing allusions to having been killed, it honestly kills ME a little every time.

There were never any rules against remembering being killed. The only things the old rules stated were that you couldn't remember anything between death and being back to life, which is to say anything that happened in the fugue. JJJ's original ruling on it can still be viewed on the oldest revision of the wiki's death article:

"When you enter the fugue plane, you will not recall any of the events that occurred within the fugue plane when you exit the fugue plane and return to the living.

That is all.

The reason for this is essentially to prevent the metagaming aspect of "oh, hey, I told you where my body was when we were in death together, go raise me! hyuk hyuk hyuk". But the above explanation in bold is the exact and full expectation of the server. Everything else is hearsay and a shadow rule. Also, note that it's not so much a rule in and of itself as a clarification of this issue in how it relates to the REAL rules of 1 and 4 (see journal for reference-all actual "Rules" are located in the journal).

Don't feel too badly if you've thought differently, it's one of those cases where Billy tells Susan that it's a rule, Susan tells Frank, Jim, and Ted that it's a rule, and they all start authoritatively speaking to other players in exponential numbers explaining quite rationally that this is a rule, whereupon it grows in urban lore to the point that it is accepted as a rule by the players.

But it's not.

This urban lore legend started when a couple players in pvp decided that to end their cycle of killing, that they'd "not remember" what happened before they died, so that there would be no reason to continue vengeance. Which, honestly, in and of itself is absolutely fine. I'm generally not opposed to two players agreeing ooc to do something that will smooth the storyline and RP, that only helps. The only issue came at some magical point when it started being touted about as a "rule", because it's not."

And I think people are having some seriously rose tinted glasses about that period. There was just as much "Hey, X killed me in place Y just an hour ago!" back then as there is now. The only real difference was that the small fugue area was almost an OOC lobby since people figured there was no need to keep IC if you couldn't remember things from on there anyway.

Death only holds as much weight as any given player is willing to give it, and asides from enforced permadeath there's nothing that can be done about that. Even back in the days when you lost a lot of XP on death you still had people who'd just spring right back from it and go grind back the XP like nothing happened. This ancient quote from Mithreas sums up my own thoughts on the 'weight' of death quite nicely.

Mithreas:

"There is no server rule saying that death has to mean anything beyond the mechanical impact. I quite agree, however, that this leads to unsatisfying stories. But writing a good story can't be done against a background of ooc competition. The only way to get good conflict stories is to co-operate in their writing, which means ooc communication between the parties involved to agree a context in which actions can be interpreted and the story progressed.

The friendly DM team are around to judge on any specific cases, but I'd encourage anyone engaged in conflict RP to maintain open and friendly ooc channels with their IC opponent(s)."

[Lady Astray]

I agree with Mithreas.

[MoreThanThree]

I agree with Tornius.

[Kreydis]

The only way death will receive any enforced weight IC is if it becomes a rule that you do not remember the fugue and the events leading up to your death.

This is why you see variable weight placed on dying, fearless characters and frustrating PvP aftermath.

While this is 'sort of' enforced with RPR and many people could go on and on about how this rule is probably single-handedly the biggest thing stifling a better RP environment, the team have made it clear time and time again this isn't going to change.

So there's really no point to a discussion and, as before, it will devolve into arguing specific PvP instances and justification thereof, airing grievances and, apparently, sweeping statements decrying racism in FR (You can very much be the wrong race, ugh).

I have no idea what most of your post is trying to say. But as for the "Not remembering the fugue" event. Well I can most assuredly inform you, that when that was a rule, (Maybe I'm going crazy, but I swear it used to be a rule) It's wasn't even in the slightest different compared to now.

[Sockss]

I will try to make it a little simpler.

When there are no rules concerning something, players will do what they like and that will be the best thing for them (For most players).

If death has no defined ruling and no real mechanical weight, aside from an annoyance, then that will, and is, mirrored in game.

That is to say, if there is no ruling on how people should treat death but rather 'advice' and if death is not mechanically impactful, then it will continue to have no weight.

Just as players are 'advised' on alignments and restrictive classes (Such as paladins / druids) there is no reason for them to do things that these classes would objectively not do; or at the very least would suffer severe consequences for doing - so they do what they want to, with impunity.

Part (though not the whole) of that is that you are able to remember you are revived by your deity/planar power/Toril and after a few deaths, if you treat any of what happens in the fugue as IC, you'd have to have a non-functioning int score to not suspect your immortality and the immortality of anyone else you see there. Treating the fugue and the events leading up to it as IC is directly incompatible with the preferred and advised route of not remembering.

I understand why this is, though I don't necessarily agree. Essentially Arelith is very accessible and understanding of players, while that pushes up the quantity of players it comes at a cost of quality and a detriment to the setting as a whole. IMO standards should be enforced, they encourage people to improve and make everything better for everyone.

[Royal Blood]

I just try to RP some impact depending on the death I guess. My characters most recent death had began a recovery RP like she wasn't just 'back and fine'. I tried to make consequences or impact beyond just returning. I try to picture like, so say you could be returned to life. You still endured the pain of -dying- in the first place. And if you were corpse bashed wouldn't your character be tempted to move on to the after life? She has been dealing with the side effects for OOC weeks now. They crop up in various ways.

The death doesn't matter argument comes up fairly frequently, I would tend to agree? But there's no solution for it. It'll always be a balance between respecting peoples OOC time and trying to levy harder IC consequences and for what gain? It would ultimately only empower power building and further solidify the fact that the strongest build has the greatest potential to force situations.

Forcing a player into a corner won't promote better RP it'll just lead to frustration. The only other issue with leaving it up to interpretation is that everyone has a different opinion. Where I might think the Death RP for my character was in-depth and impactful, someone else might think it was meaningless. Ultimately all you can do is RP your own character. If you think death mechanics should be taken harder, then take them harder and RP by example and be respectful of others interpretations.

I think the system now works out alright. It's up to the player to make the most of it. That's where the RPR system comes into play. If you take into account what happens to your character the DMs will notice. Taking consequences and making them apart of your character is what I'd figure a high RPR character would do.

[Durvayas]

If you want people to take death seriously, you have to take the story being created seriously, and you have to take into account that virtually no one is going to roll a character unless they feel they've been given a 'fitting death'.

Mind that what marks a fitting death is subjective. Some people roll after the first time they die and aren't raised. I think most of us will agree that its really rare to see someone roll their character after a brief couple lines of RP and a killbash. The vast majority of times, a 'fitting death' is one that comes on the heels of a long, built up, and meaningful plot arc, where dying permanently feels like the most fitting resolution to all the events preceding it. Some people are already well aware of what they consider a fitting death and are waiting for that scenario to play out. Others play until they run into an event where think it feels right. No two people are going to have the same criterion.

There is no shame in OOC coordination to set up a fitting death. We're all here to tell stories and have fun.

[Lunargent]

I see the words change/conflict thrown around a lot because some of you were told in your creative writing classes that they are essential to the story. But there are plenty of great stories out there where the change/conflict had nothing to do with violence or two people/armies fighting. Take Charlotte's Web for example, the change/conflict comes from the mortality of the spider Charlotte and her positive interactions with WIlbur the pig. Nowhere in that story do you have two armies clashing blades but it is still considered a classic and has had animated films made about it. Charlotte's death probably has a lot more weight to it than any of the orcs slain in Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit for example.

The conflict of Charlotte's Web is the violence of human society. The threat of impending death to Wilbur is what brings the other animals and Charlotte together to help him. If she does not spin the messages for Wilbur, he will be slaughtered, and so a friendship is made. Yes this is not an 'armies clashing' conflict, but it is still the threat of death that makes the story work.

EDIT: additionally, we are all playing a game based on Dungeons and Dragons. Yes there are a number of literary stories that do not involve mortal danger as a driving force, but I bet you won't find many fantasy adventure stories which are bereft of it; and in the end that is what Dungeons and Dragons, and by extension Arelith, is: a fantasy adventure roleplaying game.

[Hunter548]

I see the words change/conflict thrown around a lot because some of you were told in your creative writing classes that they are essential to the story. But there are plenty of great stories out there where the change/conflict had nothing to do with violence or two people/armies fighting. Take Charlotte's Web for example, the change/conflict comes from the mortality of the spider Charlotte and her positive interactions with WIlbur the pig. Nowhere in that story do you have two armies clashing blades but it is still considered a classic and has had animated films made about it. Charlotte's death probably has a lot more weight to it than any of the orcs slain in Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit for example.

Just to add to what Lunargent is saying - When people talk about how conflict is the cornerstone of roleplay, they don't necessarily mean literal conflict in the form of armies fighting. They mean the clash of people, ideas, beliefs, etc. This doesn't have to end in violence (Though it can, because again, we're playing a fantasy adventure game. Aragorn and the Orcs don't stand around debating until someone has to go to bed about whether conquering the world is a-okay or not.), but disagreements between characters over what the Isle of Arelith should look like, whether it should be Gondor or Mordor (Or something a little more hair-splitting) are sort of essential to the genre of game we're playing. It's an adventure game, not The Sims or Barbie or Second Life or w/e. Sitting around getting along with everyone and gossiping about who's sleeping with who or going to parties constantly sounds like a boring high fantasy story.


Edit: By the way, the reason death is important and should have weight is because there's no stakes otherwise. If the worse that one character can do to another is mildly inconvenience them in the form of taking money/housing, then why would anyone want to play a villain, and why would anyone want to play a hero to oppose said villains?

Death needs weight or the server doesn't function.

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

I see the words change/conflict thrown around a lot because some of you were told in your creative writing classes that they are essential to the story. But there are plenty of great stories out there where the change/conflict had nothing to do with violence or two people/armies fighting. Take Charlotte's Web for example, the change/conflict comes from the mortality of the spider Charlotte and her positive interactions with WIlbur the pig. Nowhere in that story do you have two armies clashing blades but it is still considered a classic and has had animated films made about it. Charlotte's death probably has a lot more weight to it than any of the orcs slain in Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit for example.

So, I'm isolating this paragraph because I more or less agree with everything else you're saying, but I was a precocious young kid and you and I have a drastically different take on the main conflict of Charlotte's web. The primary conflict for the protagonist (Wilbur the pig) was in fact that he was being raised on a farm to be BACON. When the spider's web suddenly said "Some Pig" they delayed that plan, and entered him into the fair. The height of the conflict is indeed when Charlotte dies, because the pig now has no one to write web words for him, and he's sure to be turned to bacon after failing to win the fair- but then Charlotte's babies are born and save his life, winning him the fair and getting the farmer to promise him a long life.

The conflict in the story was the main character trying to avoid being slaughtered and turned into food, and being saved by the grace of an incredible family of spiders who could've turned him into bacon by writing "This is the spider, not the pig." I'd say that involves some measure of a very real threat of violence, if not in the traditional sense. This stuck with me for a long time because this story was given a Newbery Medal.

Edit- also, Lunargent totally got to this before me.