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

Elfs live for something like 1000 years I heard.

Young Werther wrote:Elfs live for something like 1000 years I heard.

While it adds some difficulty to properly portraying an elf (because a human has lifespan of a house cat compared to an elf), it doesn't really matter.

See, if by "remaining alive" you could "have fun forever", then nobody would ever make a second character or abandon their first one.

Instead this is not the case, and people who stick to the same character for years appear to be a minority. Even Hoihe is no longer playing Hoihe Dacino or his relatives, although it is possible that those were wiped out by events I'm not aware of.

Long timers, in my experience, tend to be holed up in their office in some guild, and rarely seen outside interacting with others. They ocasionally pop up for events and guild meetings, but bumping into one on the road is pretty much a miracle. No offense intended, of course.

Now, is sitting in office all day as fun as exploring the first ever cave for the first ever time with your first ever character you made on bgtscc? I don't think so. But then again, people have difference tastes, so perhaps someone can maintain constant sense of wonder playing the same concept for 7 years. I don't know.

It's all about flow state and creativity. Anything between that to give it form is fine, goals, stories with or without endings, but I get the most out of the words I get to read and type in the moment. I don't need to over think it all thanks.

NegInfinity wrote:

Young Werther wrote:Elfs live for something like 1000 years I heard.

While it adds some difficulty to properly portraying an elf (because a human has lifespan of a house cat compared to an elf), it doesn't really matter.

See, if by "remaining alive" you could "have fun forever", then nobody would ever make a second character or abandon their first one.

Instead this is not the case, and people who stick to the same character for years appear to be a minority. Even Hoihe is no longer playing Hoihe Dacino or his relatives, although it is possible that those were wiped out by events I'm not aware of.

Long timers, in my experience, tend to be holed up in their office in some guild, and rarely seen outside interacting with others. They ocasionally pop up for events and guild meetings, but bumping into one on the road is pretty much a miracle. No offense intended, of course.

Now, is sitting in office all day as fun as exploring the first ever cave for the first ever time with your first ever character you made on bgtscc? I don't think so. But then again, people have difference tastes, so perhaps someone can maintain constant sense of wonder playing the same concept for 7 years. I don't know.

NegInfinity wrote:

Hoihe wrote: You move away from home. Did you life lose its relevance?

Same applies for characters. You lose people to interact with? You seek new people. You keep on living as your character. Because for you, losing yourself to your character for duration of play is the essential point you derive satisfaction from.

Nah.

It goes like this: Imagine that you had a childhood friend you knew since kindergarden, and on your 60th birday he or she died. Do you go ahead and find a new kindergarten buddy? No. That ship's sailed. You can't enter the same river twice.

-------

Hoihe wrote: Here's a simple thought process.

1. Playing a live character gives you an infinite amount of options to interact with the world as.
2. There is an infinite amount of options to interact with a live character.
3. There is exactly 1 option by which you can interact with the world as an indefinitely dead character. Be Resurrected.
4. There is exactly 1 option by which you can interact with an indefinitely dead character. Resurrect them.
5. There is exactly 0 ways to interact with the world as a permanently dead character.
5. There is exactly 0 ways to interact with a permanently dead character.

That doesn't make sense at all. You're too focused on ability to interact with the world.

Life has no meaning, and ability to interact with world like is not important.

A character has an ultimate goal, once that goal is achieved, continuing to live is not important, because nothing they will ever do will be as satisfying as reaching the goal was.

At this point the character should retire or die.

There aren't infinite options to interact with the world for the same reason that you can't read a book forever without ever seeing an ending. Ultimately the amount of events will be so big that the book will lose form and will stop making sense and character will become overwhelmed with them.

That's why a journey should have an ending. It is a stop point where you stop. Look back, and say "wow". And then rather than trying to add more and more to the painting made by your character's story, you walk away and start another anew.

Your posts rely entirely on the idea that I want to tell a story or to explore a concept. I want to do neither. I want to exist within the setting. As long as there is a setting to interact with and my gateway allows for the right perspective; it will remain satisfying indefinitely.

Sure, if you play to explore a single concept or to tell a story then yeah, you'll have a definite point where you can say "I'm done here." But I play for neither. I play for simply the chance to live in the setting, enjoying the fantastic elements and the occasional story progression that shakes things up.

As long as I have a character whose combination of past experiences/potential for future experiences, personality and the perspective produced who I consider enjoyable, I'm a happy camper. Threaten that purely to give OOC "value" to actions and I'll do my damnedest to sabotage any such efforts.

Literally all I find standing for permanent death is to give deeds an "OOC Value" or to "Make the story have a greater kick", and most frequently "to give consequence to stupidity." OOC value shouldn't exist - RPing should purely be perceived from an IC perspective. Sure, the story will have a greater kick and GRRM proves that point. But this is not a book nor a P&P campaign - this is a persistent roleplaying WORLD. And now for punishment - if it's an IC transgression, why punish the player OOCly by stealing away their means of interaction? Sure, kill the PC, give the player a reasonable timeout of 1 month or the option to sacrifice mechanical prowess to come back earlier. If it's an OOC transgression, punish the player and leave that poor character alone.



Regarding "tired concepts", a pre-fabricated character has a very short shelf-life. A character that has a active pursuit of achieving the traits that make them enjoyable will feel two-dimensional in their singlemindedness and also have a definite end point again: obtaining that enjoyable aspect. A passively vulnerable character will have an infinite shelf-life and merely playing as them will keep on giving once the first enjoyable trait is acquired.

One an combine these to reduce investment. E.g.: Make the pursuit of a single isolated trait the active element, pre-fabricated a vulnerability that's visible for the discerning eye and create a wide net for other enjoyable traits to be acquired as time passes.

Hoihe wrote: Your posts rely entirely on the idea that I want to tell a story or to explore a concept. I want to do neither. I want to exist within the setting. As long as there is a setting to interact with and my gateway allows for the right perspective; it will remain satisfying indefinitely.

Standing by FAI lamp for seven years count as existing. You can also interact with the lamp post by bumping into it. Do you enjoy this kind of interaction? How about aimlessly wandering?

Hoihe wrote: Literally all I find standing for permanent death is to give deeds an "OOC Value" or to "Make the story have a greater kick", and most frequently "to give consequence to stupidity."

I do not understand why you're trying to argue against a decision that hasn't been made by anyone.

Neither Devs nor DMs are trying to enforce permadeath.
Likewise, there's no real conflict going on.

So, why are you trying to condemn permadeath if it is not implemented on the server?

Hoihe wrote: Regarding "tired concepts", a pre-fabricated character has a very short shelf-life. A character that has a active pursuit of achieving the traits that make them enjoyable will feel two-dimensional in their singlemindedness and also have a definite end point again: obtaining that enjoyable aspect. A passively vulnerable character will have an infinite shelf-life and merely playing as them will keep on giving once the first enjoyable trait is acquired.

One an combine these to reduce investment. E.g.: Make the pursuit of a single isolated trait the active element, pre-fabricated a vulnerability that's visible for the discerning eye and create a wide net for other enjoyable traits to be acquired as time passes.

I believe you're needlessly overcomplicating things. I'm not sure why.

There's no need to attempt building a philosophical system here.

NegInfinity wrote:

Hoihe wrote: Your posts rely entirely on the idea that I want to tell a story or to explore a concept. I want to do neither. I want to exist within the setting. As long as there is a setting to interact with and my gateway allows for the right perspective; it will remain satisfying indefinitely.

Standing by FAI lamp for seven years count as existing. You can also interact with the lamp post by bumping into it. Do you enjoy this kind of interaction? How about aimlessly wandering?

Hoihe wrote: Literally all I find standing for permanent death is to give deeds an "OOC Value" or to "Make the story have a greater kick", and most frequently "to give consequence to stupidity."

I do not understand why you're trying to argue against a decision that hasn't been made by anyone.

Neither Devs nor DMs are trying to enforce permadeath.
Likewise, there's no real conflict going on.

So, why are you trying to condemn permadeath if it is not implemented on the server?

Hoihe wrote: Regarding "tired concepts", a pre-fabricated character has a very short shelf-life. A character that has a active pursuit of achieving the traits that make them enjoyable will feel two-dimensional in their singlemindedness and also have a definite end point again: obtaining that enjoyable aspect. A passively vulnerable character will have an infinite shelf-life and merely playing as them will keep on giving once the first enjoyable trait is acquired.

One an combine these to reduce investment. E.g.: Make the pursuit of a single isolated trait the active element, pre-fabricated a vulnerability that's visible for the discerning eye and create a wide net for other enjoyable traits to be acquired as time passes.

I believe you're needlessly overcomplicating things. I'm not sure why.

There's no need to attempt building a philosophical system here.

I've had an enjoyable RP server stolen away from me due to runaway ideas and a loud forum crowd yelling at the admins and people friendly to them becoming members of the team. They literally took an entire species and deleted them from the game's lore once a cabal-friendly admin became their administrator.

This has taught me to actively campaign against any such possibilities, and if need be, use vocabulary to draw attention.

I will do my damnedest not to have the same happen to BGTSCC. As such, active campaign vs the very idea of permadeath must be done.

Standing by FAI lamp for seven years count as existing. You can also interact with the lamp post by bumping into it. Do you enjoy this kind of interaction? How about aimlessly wandering?

How about discussing the theoretical limits of magic in a library? Just hanging around in EDE talking about elfstuff? How about simply hitting a tavern after a long journey?

Hoihe wrote: I will do my damnedest not to have the same happen to BGTSCC. As such, active campaign vs the very idea of permadeath must be done.

I'll be blunt.

Hoihe, are you alright? You're behaving oddly and inconsistent with your usual behavior.

You're jumping at shadows and campaigning against non-issue. And for no reason either. Permadeath and variations of thereof has been proposed repeatedly over course of many years and were largely ignored. There's no interest from DM/dev side, and there's no massive community support either. It is unlikely to happen, and if it does, it won't affect your chatting with farmer Todd, or whatever it is you want to do.

Get some rests or take a walk in the forest to unwind, maybe?

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.

The way I see it...

Being dead ICly shouldn't mean Permadeath server-wise.
Being dead ICly should mean disabling the character server-wise.
Permadeath = Disabling the character serverside so its non-selectable.
...the reason being in this setting there isn't such a thing as permadeath due to spells, divine-intervention and such. Even if someone faced FINAL DEATH it wouldn't be final as TRUE RESSURECTION can bring anyone back to life, with four exceptions where it cannot:

• Constructs
• Undead Creatures - However undead creatures can be destroyed and then brought back.
• Target has died of old age.
• Target has been dead more than 10 years in game years per casterlevel.

Note: It may be that the spell doesn't exist mechanically in the game, but it does exist in the lore of Forgotten Realms and because of this it still something that possibly could be cast, no matter how this is perceived, it would still require DM assistance because the character would have to be enabled again and possibly have made changes to it.

This way the context of characters relationships becomes highly important, because with the example with Artemis, if he doesn't have anyone who would want to get him brought back to life, then he'd remain dead until someone did attempt to bring him back. It could also be that someone wanted to curse him for what he did, so he would turn undead at some point.

So for instance if someone had become a lich and was destroyed it still wouldn't necessarily mean the end of that character, like for instance if the lich actually had someone loved ones who that still cared for the character, or the lich had powerful allies that wanted it back, or followers that treated it like a Patron and would be fanatical about bringing it back.

Forgotten Realms is a HIGH MAGIC setting, where its actually possible to be brought back to life, even many years later, however many characters wouldn't know this, it would most likely be myth, legend, folk-lore, etc. Or is it? Because consider it, anyone can actually walk into a temple a temple and pay for someone to be brought back from the dead - which makes this quite common knowledge - however the extent of how common it actually is, meaning how many would actually know this depends largely on a DM ruling. Although in my opinion I don't think most ordinary citizens would consider these things, because otherwise they'd be bringing back their loves in case they died of prematurely.

Incarnate wrote: as TRUE RESSURECTION can bring anyone back to life,

TRUE RESURRECTION does not exist.

See:

Between players: Spells that do not exist in the game do not exist. Cantrips that do not affect another player are fine, but all other spells do not exist. (this is part of play what is on your sheet)

https://www.bgtscc.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=45816

True Resurrection does exist with DM approval.

This is how Rilae'ar'an came back after having died and her body completely destroyed at the time of death.

I had considered her death permanent, until five months later I was approached by a player who asked if I would be okay with them seeking DM approval to have someone perform True Resurrection.

The DMs approved the request, an IC IG ritual was performed, and Ril's spirit accepted the invitation to return to Toril.

the campaign setting supports this. novels do not. lore supports both, but for a understanding of the campaign rules and how they adapt to life and "what a character should know" the novels do a better job than the rule books do. but the rule books are there so a DM can run a campaign the way that is the most fun for the players and help him in his story.

the server is what it is. the DMs want rez to be as common as a glass of water. so that is the world we live in. they could make it rare and it would be.

cant retcon it now. its where we are

true rez doesnt exist. we have something better.. its called the fugue. and it doesnt take any spell slots.

aaron22 wrote:true rez doesnt exist. we have something better.. its called the fugue. and it doesnt take any spell slots.

True Ressurection does exist in the lore, and as such it exist, but it requires DM approval.
As Grymhild also pointed out.

Furthermore, the fugue as ZERO to do with the concept of permadeath.

grymhild wrote:True Resurrection does exist with DM approval.

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.

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.