Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

and that is where we would have a very serious segregation. i would not even give conflict RP a chance with someone immortal when i am not. taking a look at both sides of that coin. that kind of peer pressure might take someone who doesnt want that kind of gameplay to just turn away completely from the server.

the server is too successful at this time for such a change. holding par at this time is the most intelligent way to move forward. there will be complaints. we will see this argument pop up many more times. and those who do not want change can feel safe.

chad878262 wrote:I believe the request was for an opt in system where the character is given greater XP rewards as well though

I don't see why there should be a carrot to opting in, that would just create a greater divide between those that do and those that don't. I would also keep this PvE only, at least as long as it's an opt-in.

It's not like you can see if another character has opted in...

dedude wrote: It's not like you can see if another character has opted in...

that is whether or not it is scripted to have an identifier for "opting in".

I really think this argument is drifting into the defensive stance too much again.

I totally see the value in characters being able to permanently die.

Also the fear of losing a precious character is totally understandable.

The problem seems to be finding a middle ground.

We can't say: okay people that want to stay alive need to stay in citys to survive everyone that goes out of town is directly in danger to permanently die.

To me the problem is really finding a system that works for all of us in an acceptable fashion...

A permanent death in D&D is usually tied to an especially grim kind of killing or special measures taken...

Maybe one could build around that?

There were many Posts in between writing and posting this post...

aaron22 wrote:if i were playing the "opt in" system, and i do not think i would be alone in this, i would not take as seriously anyone who has not opted in.

And that is why I am seriously (do-me) against anything like this. There's something called Peer Pressure. And how to ruin one's enjoyment of the game the fastest? They do shit due to peer pressure by """Elite roleplayers""" to please them. """"""Elite""""""" roleplayers then just exploit them.

you are correct in all accounts Kyon. alot of this is the paradox of 100+ heroes(villians) on a single 500k sq mile piece of land. they are both epic in ability but portrayed to be only half that. not everyone on the server is epic, but a high majority is. the magic and ability tell one story while we are supposed to pretend that it is not.

when it comes down to it though. some people like the status quo and there is nothing wrong with that. this game is fun as is. and there are some that see flaws in the current and would prefer a change. ideas are met with many forms of the devil's advocate. views are different depending upon who's eyes are being seen through.

I want to see more hardcore rules. i want it to be universal. that would give me so much excitement. but that is me. i can understand that this would be so far from fun for everyone. i am ok with the server as it is. i can move past the things that i see as flawed. because the game is fun. just like it is right now.

The question still poorly answered—so far—is: what is wrong with greater consequence to our Character's actions? What is wrong with looking to certain instances—DM Events and interaction with DM oversight—where a Player must be more considerate and more consequential in their Role-play, of their Characters?

Let me make a simple example. Say I create and RP with dedication a PC that delves into various Good acts against the Zhentarim presence on the Sword Coast. Now, the Zhentarim—either Players in the Player Guild or DMs behind the "higher" forces—make equal action against my PC, and after much RP and development, come to confront my Character...and that confrontation takes the form of either non-mechanical conflict/action, or, actual PvP mechanical battle. In short, they attack, my Character actually wins the duel, and their Character dies because of this.

With the current Rules, the only thing required is that that PC—even NPC—that has lost, must avoid my PC for 24 hours.

What I am considering and proposing that, in such an instance—whether my PC won or they won in the battle against my PC—because and with the Conflict being overseen by DMs, the loser of such a conflict incurs a Permastrike.

Now, looking at the RP affect of this, it could be that the loser never attempts to win again. They were beat, and they take that into account for the rest of their life. Or, they attempt to find a way to bring conflict again, and thus...the outcome could go they same way, and they receive 2 Permastrikes, now.

Shall this repetition go on and on and on and on and on? No. Nothing in more immersion breaking than seeing conflict be swept under the rug so that Mary Sue can life forever.

So even if the above story is repeated for a 3rd time, and a 3rd Permastrike is gained...what then? Well, for all intents and purposes, the Victor is TRULY THE VICTOR!! What a great and final victory, to celebrate!

Now, let's go and imagine the above scenario, and 1 time PC A wins and PC B loses, and then next time PC B wins and PC A loses, and next time PC A wins and PC B loses, and then next time PC B wins and PC A loses. Now, we have a situation of 2 Permastrikes on each side! Holy crap Batman! Talk about intense moments of future decisions.

Imagine the great conflict battle of might and magic this will be, to see who the ultimate Victor is?!?

No look...I'm just illustrating one part or one option to show how consequence for Role-play can add significant experiential gaming. If the above scenario does not appeal to you as a Player at all, and if you wish to keep your Character living forever, then...don't go IC to adventure, don't go into conflict, don't be a badass and talk crap when you wish, but then duck out under OOC PvP Rules.

Yeah, that is crass, but I can't shake the feeling that this careful caring care ness held over our Characters, and protected once over by the Rules, or worse, lack of applicable limits that actually already exist in the Rules, does everything to make the possibility of conflict RP...vapid.

Hey Steve from the thoughts I had basically all ended with something the DMs need to overlook, the events you mention are exactly where I'd say perma strikes are very valid, but isn't that what would occur anyways.

I know we had an event with Flasmix where we could decide to risk death strikes in order to increase our rewards...

Not sure how many took his offer but I sure did.

The only problem that we have is that even DMs can't force Deathstrikes onto players unless they break rules.

But these events where opposing parties fight each other in a special setting with DM oversight is currently the best option I could come up with myself...

steve. its really hard to tell people what is good or better for them. whether it is or isnt.

now you want a single question answered, but it is not that easy. there are a plethora of factors that are also very much involved. and those too need to be answered.

Yay for OOCly inspired IC decisions on "I have 1 permastrike left!"

Instead of "I have 2 guilds full of people with enough wealth and connections to afford true resurrecting me, so I am safe as long as I keep them informed of risks I take."

"Oh no, both guilds were alienated from me and I have nobody left to guarantee my life."



Also.

"Hello, I am a high priest of Eldath whose god literally has a spell that can reincarnate a massive amount of people pretty cheaply, provided they are in a pile. But I am took weak to resurrect this person who was hanged who also has no issues with being raised by an Eldathan and doesn't want to die either as they have plenty of loved ones here still. I also, apparently, cannot regrow an arm that was cut off by a conventional sword, despite having magic to restore it."


The following is a circle 7 spell

This spell created a green, glowing mist in the shape of a conical tent with its apex 30 ft (9.1 m) above a circular base. The base could be specified as small as 10 ft (3 m) to as large as 280 ft (85 m) in diameter. The center of the base could be placed up to 210 ft (64 m) away. The range of casting and the size of the base could be even larger for more experienced casters. Solid objects (walls, ceiling) could block the mist, but otherwise it expanded to the size chosen by the caster.[1]

The recipient of this spell, chosen by the caster, had to be touched by the mist for the spell to take effect. If the recipient was a corpse, then it was first resurrected, followed by restoration, regeneration, heal, remove curse, and cure disease. If the caster did not choose a recipient, then the spell was applied to a random intelligent creature being touched by the mist, with priority given to the living over the dead.[1]

If only corpses were touched by the mist, and the caster did not choose a recipient, then each of the dead got one chance to resist permanent death[note 1] and, if successful, were reincarnated regardless of how long they had been dead. Their new form was compatible with the environment of their surroundings, but was otherwise random.

In addition to verbal and somatic components, this spell required a drop of water blessed by Eldath herself, blessed by one of her personal servitors invoking her name, or consecrated by a priest that had achieved the rank and title of Exalted of Eldath

Julia Martin, Eric L. Boyd (March 1996). Faiths & Avatars. (TSR, Inc), p. 61. ISBN 978-0786903849.


The above spell can be casted by level 15 Clerics of Eldath, getting the title to make the water is simply a question of dedication.


This cleric can walk up to a field of corpses from a massive battle and resurrect nearly everyone.

I was thinking about events like fights near... I don't know I am going to call it a blood stone that might just trap the souls of those slain there or parts of it...

One could make the OOC decision IC by basically ingame make them lose part of their soul... But that's just an idea... I am no one that wants to force this onto anyone just throwing in thoughts for this idea...

K'yon Oblodra wrote:I was thinking about events like fights near... I don't know I am going to call it a blood stone that might just trap the souls of those slain there or parts of it...

One could make the OOC decision IC by basically ingame make them lose part of their soul... But that's just an idea... I am no one that wants to force this onto anyone just throwing in thoughts for this idea...

You can free souls trapped in a soul stone just fine.

aaron22 wrote:steve. its really hard to tell people what is good or better for them. whether it is or isnt.

Actually, what I want to get across is that it IS better for those of use that WOULD role-play Characters with no qualms for conflict. Any that participate in Conflict driven roleplay—either CVC or CvNPC—are expected to uphold consequence.

Such a change leaves such a wide open space and many places for non-conflict driven role-play to flourish, without an inch of worry, about being forced to accept consequences of conflict.

Though...am I to assume that People fear others will willfully chase down the non-conflictors, and force them to die? I'd like to say that is very unlikely to happen, because as it is, those that wish to see consequential conflict would seek out others of like mind, and DMs of like-minded storytelling, to support the desires.

It just ain't no fun to pawn the sheepish.

@Hoihe:
It is my experience that you have developed OOC "needs" or plans for your Character(s) with OOC knowledge that was used and promoted in order fulfill an RP agenda. Would this be any different to what you are currently saying would "ruin your IC experience," if some more cosequential, Permastrike Rules were upheld? I get a feeling from your words that you are nervous that the OG Hoihe Character will be forgotten, or any Character forgotten, because they Die. But in my opinion, Characters are forgotten because of far greater issues, than their death. In my opinion, Characters are forgotten because they never truly Lived, nor was their living such a challenge, that it was memorable. This is EXACTLY what my OP is about, if that is not clear to you. Now please...help find a way to make more consequence work on BGTSCC. Thank you.

Violation of Rule #2 - Modified by Hawke

Hoihe wrote:

K'yon Oblodra wrote:I was thinking about events like fights near... I don't know I am going to call it a blood stone that might just trap the souls of those slain there or parts of it...

One could make the OOC decision IC by basically ingame make them lose part of their soul... But that's just an idea... I am no one that wants to force this onto anyone just throwing in thoughts for this idea...

You can free souls trapped in a soul stone just fine.

But there are ways to prevent Resurrection right?

I am no expert on D&D so I have to ask... Although there must be things like that

Let's stay of personal attacks

aaron22 wrote:

However, I feel that if someone is playing "the antagonist", they should be forced to stay dead if the RP calls for it. I don't wish to cause any conflict, so I'll not name names or characters, but a while back there was someone who was going around killing people (completely within the PvP rules; no complaints there). They ended up becoming the antagonist, and pretty famous. They were killed three or four times before they stayed dead. In a case like that, I think that the person who is playing "the bad guy" should go into it knowing that they are going to be hunted and killed eventually. And they should stay dead.

switch perspectives and you become the antagonist. two sides to every story.

I put antagonist in quotes, because I couldn't think of a better term at the time. "Instigator" works as well, but doesn't fully cover it either. I think people get what I mean though. The person who is causing the uproar.