Although it may be meaningless to say so, I have almost never posted on IC matters in an OOC venue -- let alone start a thread on the matter! -- but I believe that posting is warranted in this event.
I am speaking of the nature of Ivor Kalstoff's death. I suspect that the DMs do not want us to dwell upon the specific incident, so let's please keep things as general as possible (along with being courteous and respectful, naturally) in this discussion.
It is my belief that the circumstances of his death were poorly carried out, not necessarily from an IC perspective but from an OOC one. In killing Ivor days before his siege of Blackhearth Keep, the event that stood to involve well over one half of the server will likely fall apart, making weeks of plotting, double-crossing, politicking, and generally excellent roleplay come to nothing. No one will disagree that Ivor was a magnetic figure that attracted both solid allies and implacable enemies, or even that Ivor's actions deserved death ... but what's the point in killing a PC in such a fashion, bringing an inglorious end to a wonderful story?
This isn't real life, it's a cooperative storytelling effort. A great story is long-lasting, and climactic; I hold that killing a PC that forged an enormous coalition from nothing but spit, bubblegum and a few paperclips just before the culmination of his career is extremely anticlimactic. Does it make sense ICly that Ivor would be knifed alone, in the middle of nowhere? Sure, I suppose. But where's the fun in that?
The problem, in my opinion, is that people can get emotionally involved with the success of their character and faction, and develop a belief that they must "win". This is a very bad state of mind to be in. Randomly killing a character that brings enormous conflict to the server serves only to bring a great deal of roleplay to a premature end, and even discourage other players from bringing conflict in the future to avoid being ganked in the same fashion.
Perhaps Ivor deserved to die ICly. But why not do it during, or after the siege of Blackhearth, not before? That way everyone can be satisfied, not by "winning" but by ending a story as it should be ended. People shouldn't cut conflict short anymore than a book should end three-quarters of the way through the plot -- there's just no fun in it. And that's what we play this game for, if I'm not mistaken.
So to conclude: don't try to "win", but allow conflict to drag on as much as possible, and make efforts to ensure that the story ends on a satisfactory note for everyone. As the title of this thread says, conflict is best served after a long simmer, not a quick boil.
Hear hear.
Damn. I hope blackhearth siege still takes place, but it is lame as hell ivor is dead. I can't agree more with the OP, whoever killed Ivor might have killed a great deal of fun for the rest of us.
Good post, all points meritorious.
As one of the first of Ivor's enemies, Adeladle could have PhKed him to the back of the head dozens of times. But it was patently obvious that this story arc would be best concluded with a massive lagfest PvP of doom, the likes of which the server has never seen.
Simply a lack of imagination ganking him outright.
prebuff ganking is how you win, isn't it?
Glad to see I had a PC who left enough ripples that other people got mad when he died, but in the grand scheme of things-
What he did, what happened to him, and how it happened, were both OOCly and ICly acceptable. Without getting into details, the person who killed me was involved in the entirety of this plot from god damn near the very start of things. There were extenuating circumstances around the death that I find particularly distasteful but that's the nature of the game: Can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time.
No ill will should be had at all towards the folks who offed me, and there will be no doubt suitable IC ripples because of it.
~THAT SAID~
Everything that Iron has said is adamantly true, regarding PC vs PC conflict. However do not compromise your IC actions because you want to foster a "Story". Sometimes a douchebag needs to be punched in the face, sometimes a bandit needs his head cut off, and sometimes a war-mongering powerhouse needs a stabbing.
You have to stay true to ICly what your character would do.
People try to play up every story as an epic tale on par with great works of fiction. The fact of the matter is, its not.
Sometimes folks stories end. You should never feel bad about ending, or having yours ended. Should you end a story, you should make sure it changes your character. It can be little or it can be massive based on the story in question.
The beauty of EFU is no ending is ever permanent. You can always roll up a new PC and try to top it. Stories start whereever a story ends.
While I think that Ivor's death at the seige of Blackhearth would have certainly been more dramatic than a quiet death elsewhere, I'm a bit disturbed that people are being called out for what they did in an IC fashion. (No, I was not part of that group.) Would there have been an issue if an assassin was hired to kill Ivor and/or his men, one by one? What if he died to a horde of stargazers cannibalizing him? Why are none of these suitable endings to an interesting story?
While I commend players who create interesting events and pull others into those events, I think we're treading in a dangerous area when you assume those players / PCs should be immune to the hazards everyone else has to face (death by wild animals, assassinations, etc) for the sake of a building story.
I was going to post in this thread, and then I wasn't, and then lakhena said basically what I wanted to say anyway.
On the large scale, where the past four years of EfU are all one continuous story, Ivor's death registers the same whether it was at Blackhearth Keep, or in the wilds alone. Nobody gets a plot shield for being awesome. Being awesome means making your own plot shield, with plot.
A great story always involves a lot of risk and it's the characters that overcome those obstacles (or perhaps have the foresight to avoid them) often and still push their agenda that truly shine. Every character will end, it's an inevitable fate, and the quality of things is shown in the time between the creation and end that truly give life to the world.
Ivor being killed was certainly legit as he had countless enemies around the colony and many of them were quite powerful. While it's a shame he won't be there to further lead his efforts I do know that there were many followers that can continue his story with their own agendas attached.
People are missing the point. Of course there's no predetermined end for a character, and there never should be. However, the siege would have brought the most fun to the most people. It would have been what's best for roleplay on EfU in general. Ganking Ivor in the wilds lacked style, and imagination, and in my opinion is mostly due to people losing sight of these things.
What happened made EfU a somewhat less fun place to play, simple as that. As players we're just as responsible as DMs to create the fun here, and that means fun for others, not just self.
I will agree with the overall sentiment of the post but not relate it directly to Ivor's death. It's not about WINNING, it's about making a story! In my eyes, anyway.
Hi, I am Thorgrim in game and have only recently become involved with Ivor and the Dogs O' War. I had a simple question, and please forgive my ignorance since I only know of this happening from this forum post, but.. Why does the character of Ivor have to go to waste? He started the ball rolling on a massive, massive thing here that got many people involved including myself obviously. Because he has died does not mean that it must end, and I think by allowing it to end is disrespectful to the work put into everything to date on both sides of the fence not just for Ivor.
Why must the siege come to a halt, why can it not go on? More people are involved in this than just Ivor. I think it is very unrealistic for it to stop because the (obvious in my opinion) assassination of one character. If it were to stop it only sets a bad atmosphere and example for the server by telling people that conflict can be avoided entirely by simply offing someone.
Maybe members of the Dogs of war should make the invasion go on? TBH if RWG was what kept the faction afloat and PCS cant pick up the slack of an epic PC faction that RWG started then that faction deserves to fail.
-DRD
Amen to what Dr. D said.
Furthermore, if we're instituting this as a rule now, I want all my FD'ed characters back so they can finish their major huge stories that were just about to get rolling.
Quote from: Dr Dragon;163284Maybe members of the Dogs of war should make the invasion go on? TBH if RWG was what kept the faction afloat and PCS cant pick up the slack of an epic PC faction that RWG started then that faction deserves to fail.
This really isn't the point, it's got nothing to do with the faction. Maybe the siege will proceed, maybe not, we just have to see how the RP goes. But I can pretty much guarantee it won't be this Saturday as planned. There needs to be a lot of planning redone, and alliances resealed, but first a character will need to step up, and I'm not really sure if that will happen yet.
Go back and read what Iron Oligarch said because I feel he's right on the mark.
Quote from: Portal Rat;163285Amen to what Dr. D said.
Furthermore, if we're instituting this as a rule now, I want all my FD'ed characters back so they can finish their major huge stories that were just about to get rolling.
Yea so do I!
t
Quotehe siege would have brought the most fun to the most people.
Capricios nailed it IMO.
Even if the gank was ICly justifable, and OOCly allowed, a gank is much less fun than a massive PvP ending with an epic confrontation.
The gank involves 5+ people. The other can invlove half the server.
It's easy to say the siege should continue, likely will, should. But it won't be the same. Now the main atnagonist (or the protagonist) is gone, and the motivations will not be as strong ICly. Some characters wanted to fight only to kill ivor, or to gain ivors favour, now that he is gone, the characters will not have a reason to fight, and while they still can, won't make sence, and will feel lame, hollow.
Umbaktu for instance was going to fight because ivor would give them land, with him gone, who will give them the land? No one, why fight at all? Only for the OOC trhill of PvP, only justificable by the characters wanting to feel the thrill of battle, if it suits them.
lame.
No one is immune to death. Kotenku stated this nicely but you have to remember that characters of stature and high level of involvement in the server are always at risk of death in regards to assassination (regardless of how well they can protect themselves).
Doesn't anyone remember the times in EfU when FD could happen in the most public of areas and the assassin would use a smooth stone or whatever it was to escape into that system of doorways? Besides, who says plots have to die with their leader? Montezzi's reign continued far beyond his death by the minions he recruited.
Honestly, if this entire siege depended on one PC leading it, I would not blame the means of his death on its fallout, I would look to those who were involved and passed up the chance to take his place and continue the initiative. Ivor left a flame, either fuel it or let it flicker out but it all depends on the characters he spent hours upon hours recruiting.
Edit: I have no clue what happened IG so this may not have been an assassination! Just fyi.
For clarity's sake, the assassination in the wilds was carefully planned out by several PCs who all plotted together on it, and Ivor made his choice to put himself into that position in the first place. Comments such as this "lacking style and imagination" are neither accurate or desired.
While I appreciate the general sentiment of the post, and the views of Oligarch and Capricious, I stringently disagree with their insinuations; that a PC who is very dynamic and involves many others in his schemes should receive an extraneous blanket insulating him from FD PVP.
As is always the case in EFU, you make the bed you lie in. If you stir up enough conflict, you will have enemies, and some of them will plan to remove you. This is GOOD. These are the best characters, irregardless of how they die.
As for the current situation, as Capricious mentions alliances will need to be resealed and the general dynamics of the current conflict rediscovered, especially with regard to leadership questions. Does this not produce more exciting RP, the very thing you said the assassination took away?
As is the answer to many threads that pop up in General Discussion: focus not on what others are or aren't doing, and just concentrate on yourself and your PC, and how you can best involve others and add to the EFU atmosphere. :p
I'd like to encourage anyone who feels the loss of Ivor makes the plot he started hollow to step up and fill the missing shoes. There's absolutely no reason his plot should stall. It's a credit to how well his character did that his plot could easily outlive him, providing his supporters don't simply let it die.
Oh well, Kudos on RwG for bringing up something so sweet, I hope others carry his plot on. I also hope whoever killed him make similar cool stuff that involves so many people and bring sweet stuff to the server.
Excellent, it seems that we've got a good discussion going. I should clarify, that I don't believe that proactive PCs should receive a plot shield at all. Likewise, Caddies makes an excellent point in his closing arguments (in addition to the rest of his post):
QuoteAs is the answer to many threads that pop up in General Discussion: focus not on what others are or aren't doing, and just concentrate on yourself and your PC, and how you can best involve others and add to the EFU atmosphere.
I have no interest in placing a burden on others. As RwG has said, everything done was perfectly acceptable OOCly and ICly. However, I still encourage everyone to rise above what is "acceptable", and strive for what is "meritorious". One should not compromise their character's beliefs to make fun for others, but that's not to say that characters can't bend them to give others an opportunity.
Quote from: Groucho the Marxist;163295I'd like to encourage anyone who feels the loss of Ivor makes the plot he started hollow to step up and fill the missing shoes. There's absolutely no reason his plot should stall. It's a credit to how well his character did that his plot could easily outlive him, providing his supporters don't simply let it die.
That's all well and good, but I can say with a great deal of certainty that this is not as simple, easy, or likely as you may believe. None of the Dogs' players are willing or able to do as much as RwG could (read: because he has no life, we do). The plot needed RwG, and the plot is damned near dead without him. If it does pick up, seriously, super-kudos to whoever does it.
Caddies and those who agree with his opinion, haven't we all discussed this ad nauseum? I was under the impression that we wanted to dissuade people from FD ganking. Planning and the RP of doing so has nothing to do with it, it's the result of that RP that is being questioned. I believed that as a roleplaying community that we expected better, barring certain circumstances like assassins. Even those assassin PCs are under strict watch, and certain soft requirements exist.
I don't believe anyone in the entire situation is crying foul play, which seems to be more of what you're addressing. The OP and concurring posts simply state that they had hoped for, nay, expected a higher level of creativity than a team gank on a solo PC with an immediate FD. Furthermore, Ivor Kalstoff did not ever, and did not plan to ever as far as I'm aware, FD another PC (making "fair death" arguments incomplete for lack of a more precise term). Never FD'ing was a plot point we discussed during our early designs of the Dogs that stuck with the group from then until now (the truth comes out, RwG was the heart but I was the brains behind the Dogs, bring it RwG). I can only imagine that this will change, unfortunately.
Consider the other options that could have been taken.
-Take the PC's armor and weapon with the promise to return it in the case of good behavior, ie manipulation and blackmail to control a powerful PC mercenary corp.
-Threat of death, having been bested once, if a certain criteria is not met.
-Held the PC for ransom for certain valuable objective, be it items, gold, or policy.
These aren't super creative and very abstract. I'm sure our rockin' playerbase can come up with more suitable, situation-specific outcomes.
Now, don't mistake me folks. I know the FD was fair as judged by the DMs present. I trust them. The concern is that it came instantly to ending a character with what many of us believe was a premature FD. It's a cyclical thing, the "win" attitude.
The Take Home Point: Let's move on, whether you agree with me wholeheartedly or vehemently disapprove of my opinion and try to make very good choices in the future when you plan on killing a character. And remember, when you FD a character, it's just all the more likely that cool plots YOUR character is involved with will be ended prematurely and mid-plot, crashing even more plots and effecting even more people.
QuoteAs is the answer to many threads that pop up in General Discussion: focus not on what others are or aren't doing, and just concentrate on yourself and your PC, and how you can best involve others and add to the EFU atmosphere.
Sums up my opinion on the matter. This sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME. However a mistake was made in that arrangements for the "pvp" were made in a massively public manner instead of privately thus leading to something anti-climatic.
It was nice to see people who'd never really got involved in this sort of thing giving it their all but they have to understand that more often than not this is the way that these sort of things come to an end.
Involve too many people in the planning phase of something like that and you end up delaying it so long you can't outlast it.
Quote from: TheImpossibleDream;163314Sums up my opinion on the matter. This sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME. However a mistake was made in that arrangements for the "pvp" were made in a massively public manner instead of privately thus leading to something anti-climatic.
It was nice to see people who'd never really got involved in this sort of thing giving it their all but they have to understand that more often than not this is the way that these sort of things come to an end.
Involve too many people in the planning phase of something like that and you end up delaying it so long you can't outlast it.
You're absolutely right. RwG tried to involve lots of people, and delayed matters so that people could get in on the fun. As a result those delays caused him to die before it could actually happen. But is the lesson here that we shouldn't try big things that involve lots of people? Because to me that's exactly the problem, that we all accept this lesson. But I've put forward my thoughts on the matter, so I'll just continue on roleplaying as I was.
I agree that there was a lot of reasons for a lot of characters to kill Ivor. Did the character deserve to die for what he did or was going to do? Probably.
But still. Letting your enemy live and create a BALANCED conflict where each side has a decent chance of "winning" or furthering their goals and make make conflicts last longer makes it more fun for everyone.
I've only played on this server for a little more than a year, but I've noticed a change. A change in how plots and conflict is handled by PCs. It has been mentioned a few times on the forums, the "I want to win" mentality. I played a character on the opposing side of Ivor and as his (probably) greatest enemy I had to deal with people wanting to assasinate him from pretty much day one, for just speaking threats, so I know what I'm talking about.
If everyone who tries to stir up some conflict would get killed in the now most common "prebuff invisgank" way, people will stop playing these type of characters and the server will slowly die because of lack of player initiative, and DMs will have to handle everything when it comes to making stories and push plots.
I'm not saying that this particular case was worse than any other, I'm just saying that people need to start using their imagination before they switch to full damage mode and just kills people who tries to burst their little bubble they play in.
Instead, try to use other ways. Some has already been mentioned in this thread.
To end this post I'd like to ask a question;
What's the fun of playing if you know you're going to win?
FD is fine if it is earned ICly. Always has been, always will be. Opinions/arguments derived of personal feelings on what is essentially an unconditional issue are superfluous.
It has been discussed ad nauseum, I agree. And so in the interest of closure, here is the definitive answer on the subject:
We strongly encourage creative alternatives to FDs where applicable, but sometimes FD makes the most IC sense and assuming ample IC reasoning is there for the deed, its perfectly legitimate.
I know certain people would like to see a revision of this philosophy, but I'm afraid its a central tenet of the EFU vision and will not be changed.
Wait, so you guys are surprised that one of RWG's characters has died before its time?
Quote from: 9lives;163335Wait, so you guys are surprised that one of RWG's characters has died before its time?
(+1)