Arelith

So if a player gets kill what happens to the memory of the event ? Does he remember it ? Like lets say i rp a bandit that shakes people off their gold just becouse and someone gets murdered would he remember the event ? What if we burn or put the body in acid ? Is it able to pass any information anyway though its spirit or magic ?

It's very popular in online RP games that the person killed has no memory of who killed them the details. It prevents griefing and endless retaliation. But it was tried here a long long time ago and it seems to be too hard for DMs to enforce it and people don't follow it through.

So if your character dies they will remember everything you want to. Consequences of the death are up to you as long as you take death seriously (and even that is up to interpretation).

Diegovog wrote: Sun Jul 04, 2021 3:34 pm It's very popular in online RP games that the person killed has no memory of who killed them the details. It prevents griefing and endless retaliation.

I just agree with this so much and hold high respect of players who intentionally forget details about their death in most circumstances. I find that players who must remember who killed them doing so 99% out of must-win mentality which doesnt really fit this kind of server.

As I understand it, the rule itself:

- turned out to be ineffective against players with the "must win" mentality
- had been breached with a frequency that became unmanagable by the DM team
- effectively only stifled roleplay for those players who were willing and had the ability to build a compelling story from a lost PvP encounter


That being said, I'd still suggest reporting instances of questonable roleplay.
Just because someone technically didn't break any rules does not necessary have to mean that their conduct isn't disruptive and that it doesn't warrant DM attention.

Slight Baatezu Advocate here, if someone doesn't remember their death at the hands of someone else how do you RP that? If someone says they killed you do you just bluntly deny it because you have no recollection of it which renders it a meaningless boast?

Doesn't that mean there's just far fewer consequences for any killing unless you explicitly have to hand and then leave a witness?

I mean, I think this is really a "How good is the RP" thing and do we want repeat customers as well as the context of any RP itself.
If this was a stealthy and quick assassination then its completely reasonable that you wouldn't remember much regarding it but if you were captured, imprisoned and after some great RP eventually killed? - I'd say that memory loss there would kinda do it a disservice to the RP that its all just kinda..brushed under the rug and forgotten IC.

Obviously if people have been quick to jump to PVP over RP then this isnt something we want to encourage or deal with again then sure, feel free to forget but in cases like that then its probably not the sort of person I'd want to spend my time with again anyway so I'm not going to make it into a big deal because that sort of PVP doesnt really..do anything. It doesnt build on or become anything.

If its Good RP just.. be an adult and ask the person involved.
If some Snuggybear just runs into the hub and throws about a few 40+DC Wail of the Banshee spells and kills a bunch of people then I'm probably not going to make it into a character defining moment I'd *want* to remember.

Ninjimmy wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:22 am Slight Baatezu Advocate here, if someone doesn't remember their death at the hands of someone else how do you RP that? If someone says they killed you do you just bluntly deny it because you have no recollection of it which renders it a meaningless boast?

Doesn't that mean there's just far fewer consequences for any killing unless you explicitly have to hand and then leave a witness?

Having your supposedly dead victim coming back to life, writing down a thesis about the fight and who killed them, should never be a consequence for pvp.

Witnesses? Sure. But if the RP ends with the pvp, then it ends. I dont think anyone should force further RP just for the sake of making the pvp supposedly more meaningful through remembering who killed them. It feels backwards and griefy.

Players seem to be gravitating to the option which mostly benefits their own character here, often pushing retcon~like narrative that paints them in the best image possible.
TBH, my biggest pet peeve regarding the entire topic is the inconsistency and the double standard how this is being treated IG as a result:

Ninjimmy wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:22 am If someone says they killed you do you just bluntly deny it because you have no recollection of it which renders it a meaningless boast?

Form what I've seen, in the overwhelming majority of instances where the killer bragged to their victim about having defeated them the claims got simply dismissed out of hand IC:

A: "I kill u like I did last time!"
B: "No u clearly didn't as I'm laughing to ur face right now, d'oh!"


All while, this:

AstralUniverse wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:07 am Having your supposedly dead victim coming back to life, writing down a thesis about the fight and who killed them, should never be a consequence for pvp.

...I've seen far too often being regarded seriously and as legitimate IC:

A: "B killed me, I'm mad!"
C: "Yeah, u should write up a report and tell the guards on B!"


Hilariously enough, there's another option in which somebody starts bragging about having defeated someone who they never have, essentially pushing a nonsensical IC narrative while fully relying on the OOC ambiguity of the entire matter.

AstralUniverse wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:07 am

Ninjimmy wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 8:22 am Slight Baatezu Advocate here, if someone doesn't remember their death at the hands of someone else how do you RP that? If someone says they killed you do you just bluntly deny it because you have no recollection of it which renders it a meaningless boast?

Doesn't that mean there's just far fewer consequences for any killing unless you explicitly have to hand and then leave a witness?

Having your supposedly dead victim coming back to life, writing down a thesis about the fight and who killed them, should never be a consequence for pvp.

Witnesses? Sure. But if the RP ends with the pvp, then it ends. I dont think anyone should force further RP just for the sake of making the pvp supposedly more meaningful through remembering who killed them. It feels backwards and griefy.

I take your point but the alternative is... what?
Never interact with those two characters again?
Mutually agree to never talk about it if you do?

I'm not a fan of the "writing a thesis" method of handling it (specifically because we have Death as DEATH rather than "heavily wounded and needing medical aid") because it's largely used as a social tool rather than to serve an actual story, but it does acknowledge an event happened rather than, well

-XXX- wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 10:40 am
A: "I kill u like I did last time!"
B: "No u clearly didn't as I'm laughing to ur face right now, d'oh!"

The only valid alternative as I see it is perma-death which... I would assume is not something players at large want enforced in a game that relies so much on RNG?

Simply moving on and focusing on other aspects of the conflict seems like the sensible way to do here.

Take a win, but don't be obnoxious about it.
Roll up with the punches and let others have their fun too when that situation arises.

In either case it's important to leave enough room for other players to partake in telling the story rather than exploit ambigous OOC concepts to force one's own narrative down everbody's throat.

I wish that players would just assume this to be the standard in most scenarios and that they wouldn't require some sort of mutual agreement for that.
I'd also like to see the rest of the community to reject deviations from it by painting the deviating characters as crazy.
This goes EQUALLY for both the "I keelt u yesterday, trololo!" as well as the "U keelt me yesterday, boo!" cases.



I think that this all depends on how it's being presented IG. Let's try and retell the same story here:

"Joe and Bob have a beef with each other which escalated to a into violence recently. That drew the attention of the local authorities who got involved."

"Joe insulted Bob, Bob killed Joe, Joe respawned and complained about Bob to the guards, now Bob wants to get back at Joe again as he blames him from having his shopping privileges revoked."


One of the above is more descriptive and explicit, which leaves less room for interpretation and further storytelling.
Being more explicit only serves to solidify the "victory" of one of the parties involved, but for the purposes of the story it's not very important.

Ninjimmy wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 11:53 am I take your point but the alternative is... what?
Never interact with those two characters again?
Mutually agree to never talk about it if you do?

You dont really have to plan or agree on anything with anyone. Your character doesnt remember someone who killed them, which means they wont recognize them when meeting them, or just not remember that fight. Which means interaction can still happen. And the killer with the memory advantage gets to keep RPing with the victim in that case, if the victim allows that avenue.

Why never interact again? why agree on anything mutually (except not to interact for 24-hour rule)?

Nothing stops this two characters from RPing again, it' just probably not gonna be yet another retaliation back and forth tennis play, and RP about something else instead.

...I've seen far too often being regarded seriously and as legitimate IC:

A: "B killed me, I'm mad!"
C: "Yeah, u should write up a report and tell the guards on B!"


Hilariously enough, there's another option in which somebody starts bragging about having defeated someone who they never have, essentially pushing a nonsensical IC narrative while fully relying on the OOC ambiguity of the entire matter.

The part where "B killed me" should be answered with "you look very alive to me... surely B didnt kill you". Definitely not "oh I believe you, please write down everything that happend into details seconds before your death". But yeah, you see a lot of RP styles these days and given the fact the rules say you CAN remember, so there we are.

I don't think I've ever seen an interaction where the person killed completely forgets the encounter. That also doesn't work because there's usually some sort of witness. And frankly, you could end up dying a few times and role playing out forgetfulness each time is annoying in my opinion.

I don't think it's super fun or realistic to completely forget a death. I think it is fair to give it time. For example, if my character dies in a climatic point in the story I may not play then for a few weeks to give the story time to develope.

If I get ganked on the Ice Roads or die in some massive pvp I respawn and follow the normal no 24hr interaction etc.

Because a character can presumably recall their demise. It emphasizes the importance of political RP and the creation of like a story. Because if you're just killing people expecting them to respawn and forget... It's never going to happen. But if the story or politics shift then you've got something enduring after the pvp.

AstralUniverse wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 2:03 pm

Ninjimmy wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 11:53 am I take your point but the alternative is... what?
Never interact with those two characters again?
Mutually agree to never talk about it if you do?

You dont really have to plan or agree on anything with anyone. Your character doesnt remember someone who killed them, which means they wont recognize them when meeting them, or just not remember that fight. Which means interaction can still happen. And the killer with the memory advantage gets to keep RPing with the victim in that case, if the victim allows that avenue.

Why never interact again? why agree on anything mutually (except not to interact for 24-hour rule)?

Nothing stops this two characters from RPing again, it' just probably not gonna be yet another retaliation back and forth tennis play, and RP about something else instead.

Nothing stops it but you now have an elephant in the room of "canon" as one person knows a killing occurred and the other doesn't and the only options you have are:

a) Don't bring it up so you can continue antagonising each other without the baggage, rendering it a bit moot.
b) Bring it up, other character denies/refuses it happened - leads to either nothing or constant assertions/denials
c) Bring it up, other character accepts that happened - leads to either a vendetta or the classic "That guy killed me!" stuff we all agree is a bit pants.

(Also, just to restate, I do agree that immediately rousing a gang to avenge your OWN death is dumb as bricks, but given 99% of characters will die and come back we either need to acknowledge that it happens WYSIWYG or agree that those aren't real deaths in some capacity because just ignoring it seems...)

Forget death as a rule is often just too broad a bush to paint with. It does not exactly promote stories where things that happen matter. There are times when forgetting can be very appropriate but it can be just as easily used to skirt consequences. As said above by Royal Blood the most realistic and respectful thing you can do as the one who 'died' is to take some time away from the character. As the one who did the killing the most respectful thing to do is to keep it ambiguous, to use less intense language. For example 'i beat them up and left them laying in the road, it's up to the gods if they live or die'.

No big surprise but pride gaming is the culprit most often for this kind of thing going south. I don't know what to do about that other than suggest people find their self worth outside of Arelith. Some people are just going to be funny about things though so do the best you can.

Ninjimmy wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:02 pm a) Don't bring it up so you can continue antagonising each other without the baggage, rendering it a bit moot.
b) Bring it up, other character denies/refuses it happened - leads to either nothing or constant assertions/denials
c) Bring it up, other character accepts that happened - leads to either a vendetta or the classic "That guy killed me!" stuff we all agree is a bit pants.

I consider this a huge oversimplification, as there are plenty of gray area cases in between these three examples. What if there are witnesses? What if the PC head is involved? What if the victim is the far more popular character and everyone blindly believes them anyway? I consider it a lot more immersive and a lot more RP enabling if the victim does not remember the fight (they can still speculate who killed them if they only spend the last few days with a handful of people who are now potential suspects). It also means there's no stupid never ending retaliation cycle (and those easily get under people's skin and leak into social ooc consequences, and we've seen this happening from time to time). It also means both side may RP again and that RP may or may not be hostile again instead of "you killed me!" and then there are less avenues for a narrative. It gives the winner of the pvp the little reward of memory advantage, which is a small but cool boon that helps the winner of the pvp get agency on what the loser knows or doesnt know, and it's all with the loser's consent because remember oocly they remember everything and likely got it screenshot too. Over all, I think it's a much more allowing atmosphere. It cannot be enforced, and wont work because of a few bad apples in the basket. But I still encourage players to choose it willingly when dying in pvp and they will at least have my huge respect. My two cents. Cheers.

AstralUniverse wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 9:01 pm

Ninjimmy wrote: Mon Jul 05, 2021 3:02 pm a) Don't bring it up so you can continue antagonising each other without the baggage, rendering it a bit moot.
b) Bring it up, other character denies/refuses it happened - leads to either nothing or constant assertions/denials
c) Bring it up, other character accepts that happened - leads to either a vendetta or the classic "That guy killed me!" stuff we all agree is a bit pants.

I consider this a huge oversimplification, as there are plenty of gray area cases in between these three examples. What if there are witnesses? What if the PC head is involved? What if the victim is the far more popular character and everyone blindly believes them anyway?

Not to sound dismissive, it simply alters when one of these three eventualities lands, though it would have some bonus RP which is good the result is gonna be the same.

I consider it a lot more immersive and a lot more RP enabling if the victim does not remember the fight (they can still speculate who killed them if they only spend the last few days with a handful of people who are now potential suspects). It also means there's no stupid never ending retaliation cycle (and those easily get under people's skin and leak into social ooc consequences, and we've seen this happening from time to time). It also means both side may RP again and that RP may or may not be hostile again instead of "you killed me!" and then there are less avenues for a narrative. It gives the winner of the pvp the little reward of memory advantage, which is a small but cool boon that helps the winner of the pvp get agency on what the loser knows or doesnt know, and it's all with the loser's consent because remember oocly they remember everything and likely got it screenshot too. Over all, I think it's a much more allowing atmosphere. It cannot be enforced, and wont work because of a few bad apples in the basket. But I still encourage players to choose it willingly when dying in pvp and they will at least have my huge respect. My two cents. Cheers.

This... actually rings kind of false to me, not that I dont see your viewpoint but it doesnt feel reflective of players and... characters, almost.

Not knowing who killed you can lead to an IC investigation which is fun and good for RP, heartily endorsed. But once they know... why wouldnt there be a revenge cycle? If they can be non hostile after that, they could be non hostile while remembering.

I don't think choosing to not know who killed you will lead to a marked improvement in the future RP with someone, its just Option A.

Like... I see no issue with going that route but cant see any outcome except the three I listed and Option C (if we can AVOID revenge killings and give the interaction suitable weight) holds continuity so it gives PvP a real sense of consequence.

Still somewhat playing devils advocate but I dont think it enriches a story to make a fatal PvP encounter into the 9th season of Dallas.

If I lose in PvP in a meaningful way, and I'm not rolling, I'll do a couple things,

a) RP some kind of ailment for X time
b) have nightmares of the killer (in the presence of other chars in those 'need to rest awk scenarios')
c) hype up the killer as someone scary
d) tell friends about said killer in a vague, often inaccurate manner - misremembering details, maybe saying they had this evil cursed axe when they just had some normal axe, etc. Trying to create some sort of "story" around the killer.

Usually, this lasts for "about a week", which is a kind of sufficient lapse in time to see if any stories blossom. From there on, I make the swift and immediate recovery and hopefully begin plotting/scheming against X character, or otherwise.

Any killer who gloats, "I killed you before, and I'll do it again," really is a scenario, because you're sort of breaking one of Arelith's awkward unwritten rules - talking about death. Saying, "I defeated you before, and I'll do it again" hits a lot harder.

You want to play it fast and loose and vague around PvP actualities. The focus is on the conflict, not life/death. Pay lip service to the setting, and then move on with something better.

The biggest issue regarding this topic (and the sole reason why that former rule had even been implemented in the past) really are cases where the victim respawns to implicate their own killer.
Other iffy aspects of respawning can usually be rendered moot with the use of a small amount of common sense.

Victim being able to implicate their killer not only renders the overwhelming majority of PvP encounters irrelevant, but also actively punishes the winner in many cases.



It also somewhat plays into the "edgy guard" stereotype - pretending to be on the side of justice can be easily seen as a free PvP EZ mode license as the stakes are stacked in their favor:

- they face a suspect and lose? Martyr mode and, btw., criminal confirmed...

- they face a suspect and win? Hero mode and, btw. criminal confirmed for resistig arrest, just fyi...

-XXX- wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:18 pm Victim being able to implicate their killer not only renders the overwhelming majority of PvP encounters irrelevant, but also actively punishes the winner in many cases.

... Still slightly devil's advocate but, even with memory loss, if the victim ISN'T able to implicate their killer it's only because the killer or any witness don't talk about it any point, so the memory loss way ALSO renders the overwhelming majority of PvP irrelevant since the event is largely jettisoned from continuity.

Actual personal opinion, I think the setting would do better if we took a note out of Demon's Souls/Ravenloft's book and there was something about the archipelago that ensnares souls and makes coming back from the dead much more common place. Lampshading the mechanic rather than keeping it as the elephant in the room whenever we need to take a respawning death seriously.

Ninjimmy wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:20 pm

-XXX- wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:18 pm Victim being able to implicate their killer not only renders the overwhelming majority of PvP encounters irrelevant, but also actively punishes the winner in many cases.

Actual personal opinion, I think the setting would do better if we took a note out of Demon's Souls/Ravenloft's book and there was something about the archipelago that ensnares souls and makes coming back from the dead much more common place.

This is already softly RPd in character as a way to try to reconcile why other people keep coming back from the dead, especially serial criminals who have been executed multiple times. "There's something about this island that keeps the dead from truly resting." is a recurring theme I've come across in multiple characters, playthroughs and PC communities across Arelith.

Maybe there is wisdom in just making it official in some capacity. Yea, we're all supposed to "fear death", and it is good RP to do so, but at the same time its hard to truly fear death when there's so much *hard* IC evidence that death is not the end upon the shores of Arelith. Seeing a person decapitated in pvp and having their head paraded as a trophy isn't met with "Well, there goes X, may he rest in peace." but with "Jeeze, he's gonna be so pissed about that when his inevitable retaliation comes."

Ninjimmy wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:20 pm

-XXX- wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:18 pm Victim being able to implicate their killer not only renders the overwhelming majority of PvP encounters irrelevant, but also actively punishes the winner in many cases.

... Still slightly devil's advocate but, even with memory loss, if the victim ISN'T able to implicate their killer it's only because the killer or any witness don't talk about it any point, so the memory loss way ALSO renders the overwhelming majority of PvP irrelevant since the event is largely jettisoned from continuity.

Actual personal opinion, I think the setting would do better if we took a note out of Demon's Souls/Ravenloft's book and there was something about the archipelago that ensnares souls and makes coming back from the dead much more common place. Lampshading the mechanic rather than keeping it as the elephant in the room whenever we need to take a respawning death seriously.

As long as this does not violate existing FR lore regarding (the few sensible) Afterlives, and consequently deny PCs their access to afterlives where identity and memories are preserved (they're few, but they exist! Go Elysium/Arborea!)

Deryliss wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:30 pm
This is already softly RPd in character as a way to try to reconcile why other people keep coming back from the dead, especially serial criminals who have been executed multiple times. "There's something about this island that keeps the dead from truly resting." is a recurring theme I've come across in multiple characters, playthroughs and PC communities across Arelith.

Maybe there is wisdom in just making it official in some capacity. Yea, we're all supposed to "fear death", and it is good RP to do so, but at the same time its hard to truly fear death when there's so much *hard* IC evidence that death is not the end upon the shores of Arelith. Seeing a person decapitated in pvp and having their head paraded as a trophy isn't met with "Well, there goes X, may he rest in peace." but with "Jeeze, he's gonna be so pissed about that when his inevitable retaliation comes."

Given all the extra planar stuff, I've always headcanoned it's just that the "walls" are weak around Arelith so when people die there's a better chance of slipping back to the prime material.

LovelyLightningWitch wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:39 pm
As long as this does not violate existing FR lore regarding (the few sensible) Afterlives, and consequently deny PCs their access to afterlives where identity and memories are preserved (they're few, but they exist! Go Elysium/Arborea!)

I mean, you can LITERALLY take the PC there then delete_character if you really wanna guarantee them the good afterlife.

I wouldn't expect this to make actually dying a lore issue, more of a... for lack of a better term, comic book style death. Unless it's a big flashy affair with death flags and narrative significance, they're probably going to pop up again.

-XXX- wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 12:18 pm The biggest issue regarding this topic (and the sole reason why that former rule had even been implemented in the past) really are cases where the victim respawns to implicate their own killer.

This is real and affects low level conflict the most, in my experience. Things like sewer and bramble fights between level 5 characters that could really help them develop their story and their personality are overwhelmed by much higher level characters. Sometimes people do it with suss motivation but just as often people do it because they think it is the right move. Whatever the reason it does shut down story lines. I'd say that modeling better ways of handling these situations is the best way to positively affect change on the server, and it is really only one player at a time.

Deryliss wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:30 pm Maybe there is wisdom in just making it official in some capacity. Yea, we're all supposed to "fear death", and it is good RP to do so, but at the same time its hard to truly fear death when there's so much *hard* IC evidence that death is not the end upon the shores of Arelith. Seeing a person decapitated in pvp and having their head paraded as a trophy isn't met with "Well, there goes X, may he rest in peace." but with "Jeeze, he's gonna be so pissed about that when his inevitable retaliation comes."

I hear you when it comes to hard IC evidence. But, I don't buy it. You have to suspend disbelief (temporarily allow oneself to believe something that isn't true, especially in order to enjoy a work of fiction) with many things on Arelith or else you risk falling into a weird place where you are taking things far too literally and ruining the fun of the game for yourself. If you allow yourself to do it, you will find that it is just as easy to rationalize things so that when characters come back it makes sense as it is to seek the hard evidence that makes the same thing unreasonable. If you can do that with some resurrection narrative, awesome. If you can do it with a 'they got beat up' narrative, awesome. I would only hope that people do not force feed their own way of coping with these things down other people's throats.

Ninjimmy wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:45 pm

Deryliss wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:30 pm
This is already softly RPd in character as a way to try to reconcile why other people keep coming back from the dead, especially serial criminals who have been executed multiple times. "There's something about this island that keeps the dead from truly resting." is a recurring theme I've come across in multiple characters, playthroughs and PC communities across Arelith.

Maybe there is wisdom in just making it official in some capacity. Yea, we're all supposed to "fear death", and it is good RP to do so, but at the same time its hard to truly fear death when there's so much *hard* IC evidence that death is not the end upon the shores of Arelith. Seeing a person decapitated in pvp and having their head paraded as a trophy isn't met with "Well, there goes X, may he rest in peace." but with "Jeeze, he's gonna be so pissed about that when his inevitable retaliation comes."

Given all the extra planar stuff, I've always headcanoned it's just that the "walls" are weak around Arelith so when people die there's a better chance of slipping back to the prime material.

LovelyLightningWitch wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:39 pm
As long as this does not violate existing FR lore regarding (the few sensible) Afterlives, and consequently deny PCs their access to afterlives where identity and memories are preserved (they're few, but they exist! Go Elysium/Arborea!)

I mean, you can LITERALLY take the PC there then delete_character if you really wanna guarantee them the good afterlife.

I wouldn't expect this to make actually dying a lore issue, more of a... for lack of a better term, comic book style death. Unless it's a big flashy affair with death flags and narrative significance, they're probably going to pop up again.

I'm mostly worried that such an official explanation can be used to argue that PCs can never move on to their own afterlife after coming to arelith.

Is mostly due to the Ravenloft comparison.

If it's explained as something temporary, perhaps driven entirely by the PC's own personal volition rather than imposed on them by external forces - could be good by me.

LovelyLightningWitch wrote: Tue Jul 06, 2021 3:51 pm

I'm mostly worried that such an official explanation can be used to argue that PCs can never move on to their own afterlife after coming to arelith.

Is mostly due to the Ravenloft comparison.

If it's explained as something temporary, perhaps driven entirely by the PC's own personal volition rather than imposed on them by external forces - could be good by me.

Ahhh, Ravenloft might have been a bad comparison to draw, I just meant the "your soul isn't immediately taken to its resting place" sense rather than "Don't forget, you're here forever".