Hoihe wrote:aaron22 wrote:Incarnate wrote:Furthermore, the fugue as ZERO to do with the concept of permadeath.
you'd be right except that is the exact way to go from dead to not dead without a spell. and is where you stand while waiting for a spell that can bring back. without the fugue... you would be dead forever if you died. test it... remove the fugue. just remove it. good luck getting back into the game. but yea.. other than that nothing to do with it.
Can always replace Fugue with making death harder to occur.
This is how Baystation 12 approaches it. Since there is no Project Lazarus in the setting, dying randomly sucks.
As such, dying comes in 3 parts.
1st: Paincrit/shock. You go into coma. Your respiratory system still operates, but may need assistance. Painkillers and treatment of the injury restores you from this state.
2nd: Soft-cirt. You're in coma and your respiration is irregular. You accumulate brain damage from lack of oxygen.
3rd: hard-crit. You're in coma and not breathing. You rapidly accumulate brain damage.
As long as the brain has 1 HP left, you can "resurrect" the person. Gross body damage requires transplanting the brain into a Man-Machine-Interface either permanently (poor person who cannot afford vat-grown bodies) or temporarily (until a new body is grown for them.)
Lighter body damage can be suspended with stasis bags and cryogenic treatment (think Star Wars Kolto/Bacta). This includes being a torso with no body. If you're purely just a head, you can technically shove it into a stasis bag to slow the accumulation of brain damage while a replacement body is grown.
If impossible, take a blank sleeve and transplant the head on top of it, then kill the immune system of the patient and put them in quarantine while also keeping them overdosed on drugs to keep the jury-rig working.
Dying is very difficult in this setting with competent doctors. With incompetent doctors, you can die from appendicitis coming at you at the wrong time.
All this with the idea that death is contained within a round as in considered non-canon when a new round starts.
Reason I "jump" at shadows is because of the above setting. I've seen bad things happen there from shadows nobody took seriously, and I'd be a fool not to watch for them once more.
chad878262 wrote:Hoihe wrote:
I don't see how this is relevant?
Can you play Artemis?
Yes. Is it harder because you have a poor reputation? Yes. But can you INTERACT with the world, although with a different set of conditions as was previously? YES.
If Artemis is dead, then there is nothing more to be gained from it either as his foe, as his ally or as his player. It's as if Artemis never existed.
So Artemis alive - gives opportunity for numerous interactions and reactions. Artemis dead - might as well never have existed.
The "might as well never have existed" has a flipside. Given enough time, people forget why they hate you in the first place unless someone makes it their life goal to ruin Artemis's life and doesn't tire out.
Barring someone trying to ruin Artemis's life, save for if he decides to disguise and assume a new persona, within a year everyone will have forgot why they hated Artemis. If Artemis gets a benefactor, that year can be shortened even.
Regarding "If artemis is dead", my hatred for permanent death extends to all PCs. More often than not, when someone retires their PC or kills it off, I often find their new characters less relatable and fun to interact with.
I once even had someone consider their old character "boring", while considering the new one "good quality." From my perspective, the old character was more life-like, relatable and interactable. The new one felt like a character that's fit for a book and not a living breathing person. This conflict of views was born from them trying to play a character that fits "Story" more than "Character", and is a proof that the two styles are in conflict.
The relevance is that Artemis tries to kill Belt. If he is captured, he will be hanged and probably buried in an unmarked grave or perhaps even the body destroyed (this is a world where everyone knows death isn't final, after all). Should the player be allowed to attempt this heinous act against a Grand Duke of Baldur's Gate and then continue playing the character? I believe the current rules are lenient in that DM's issue strikes and 3 strikes result in permanent death. It allows you to attempt such grandiose acts at least a couple times and continue playing your character if you so wish. However, if Artemis is continually attempting such evils against the highest members of nobility (and failing/getting caught) it would stretch the imagination of everyone on the server. The player of Artemis is no more important than all of the players that populate our server and should not threaten their immersion by living forever while constantly being captured, sentenced and executed.
My point is that there are consequences, up to and including death for actions you take. In my tabletop sessions, whether I am DM'ing or someone else is we would all scoff at the idea of not killing off a character if that's the way the dice fell and there was no way to raise them. I wouldn't argue for that in a multi-player server like this, but having some constraints where if you decide to do something dangerous with your character and fail then he could be killed is an important part of having consequence.
Now, if Artemis is a part of a guild of Assassins and they want to attempt to break him out before being executed the DMs should allow that to happen and perhaps if the RP is solid and well planned out should give them a strong opportunity for success. However, if Artemis acted alone and has built no IC relationships of allies that would risk themselves in such a venture then that is also something that has consequence.
The relevance is that your argument seems to be that players should be allowed to do whatever they want and should be solely responsible for any outcomes of their actions. What my point in this example shows is that the player is responsible only for their characters actions, they are not in control (and should not be in control) of every outcome. In PvP, sure there should be some mutual consideration between players to not have an outcome that either party is going to be sour over. In DM events, if you are doing something risky, you should accept whatever consequence comes of that risk, however the dice rolls fall. That's D&D.
Artemis can die. However, he can always be resurrected given enough money is thrown at the problem.
To rule otherwise is to screw with the player.
