Beating the (Un)dead Horse: IC, OOC, Antagonism, Issues, etc

[sinisteromnibus]

Oct 5, 2014 16:28:28 GMT -5 dom101 said:

Oct 5, 2014 15:53:13 GMT -5 SOC_Tessa said:

I don't think it's respectful to sign up for a quest, proceed to openly antagonize the group from the get-go, and then leave the options of:
-quit the group ("You knew who was signed up for the quest, so you shouldn't have come")
-take the abuse in-character and letting those forceful characters take over (not fun for the group as a whole)
-stand up to the antagonism, only to see it used as a convenient vehicle to PvP
-split the party (read: never split the party)

Our DMs spend time to think up, develop a story, spend time to create all the quest-specific assets, and spend time to run these preparations and interact with a group of players all at once. It's disrespectful to crap on that and derail it because you personally feel like egging someone on in order to have some PvP.

I was hesitant to join up because of some those who signed on, but I took the chance that things wouldn't derail based on the full compliment of players. Lesson learned, I suppose.

I think it's disrespectful for people that can't be assed to sign up on a forum for a quest, bitch and moan about joining it only to be intentionally an irritation toward characters that signed up for it in advance.  This in no way refers to you personally.

As for my part, I play a toxic character.  I didn't use it as a convenient vehicle to pvp.  But if the shoe fits, I'm gonna wear that fucking thing till the sole falls off.  I bowed out of an event that was turning my toxic character to act against what I intended for.  I'm not going to degrade my RP to put up with people I have zero tolerance for.  IC or OOC.  I apologize if my doing as I was asked, ruined an event for anyone else that was pre-signed on.  The others?  I couldn't care less.

This was the very epitome of why I don't bother signing on to events on C/D.  It was also my first sign on, as stated.  It will be the last.

Precisely my feelings as well. IF the character that created the initial conflict in the first place had originally been in the roster for the event it would be easier to side with those who say characters should be protected from the in-character repercussions of their actions, but let's look at what -actually- happened in two very good examples.

1. Voss kills any potential captives, making interrogation difficult - if not impossible. This, in turn, pisses off Zoey who had been trying to take a captive. Zoey responds to Voss' in-character actions with threatening pvp against him. As a player I -could- have complained OOC that Zoey is a higher level than me and I feel like my RP is being confined by virtue of the fact that pvp with Zoey blocks off avenues for my character to behave as he (and I) want him to. Should it be expected that Zoey just magically changes her mind and decides "Oh, it's fine. Go ahead and kill them. I wanted to kill you a few moments ago but I don't anymore. Not sure why, but there you have it." No more than it should be expected for a paladin not to slay a fiend that's killing a baby in front of him. Some things simply break the setting and the RP of other characters far too much to be allowed. Had Zoey PVPed Voss and Voss lost you know what I'd do? Have him behave like she wants! Why? Because realistically as a character he's not going to keep pushing a conflict he can't win because HE'S NOT A FUCKING IDIOT. (seriously, even with 10 wis death is a pretty persuasive argument.)

2. Bass revives the slain captain for interrogation. The interrogation is going well and the captain is divulging his secrets without any real resistance. Behind Bass stands tenor_general's character Ana who keeps gesturing and trying to get the captain's attention. Obviously the captain is going to notice her - and stop paying attention to the interrogation, causing the whole group to waste precious time (this is something multiple members of the group had already mentioned they were concerned about). So, Bass turns around and warns her not to interfere. A verbal warning making his intention to follow up that warning with violence if it is not heeded. At -this- point tenor's character had an in-character choice to make. Either the character could ignore Bass's warning and risk the consequences or heed it, allow the interrogation to finish quicker (making the whole party happier since the event seemed somewhat time-sensitive), and seek other less conflict oriented ways of engaging in the event (anything from turning the party against Bass to doing what one character - Raina - did and looking for alternative clues or methods for completing the task). As a player which would you choose? Well, in this case the player chose to test Bass' warning and he followed through just as he had warned he would do. And even then, he stopped short of killing her and backed off. At this point the rational, logical continuation of the event would be for the character that just got bloodied to either seek revenge for the slight, bow down and back off to quietly brood and potentially come up with a way to unmake him, or decide this man is unstable and walk away from the event, losing a little bit of rp xp but maintaining the character's consistency. Is that what happened? Nope. Instead it appears the player's first response was to immediately take up an out-of-character complaint with the DM that ultimately derailed the event to the point where -every- player involved was left only with the option of compromising their character's personality and rp or walking away.

Voss walked away because as a player I will never put my character in a situation where a reaction that has been consistent in his rp up until that point is ruled an invalid option for completely ooc reasons. As a player I would rather miss out on a little bit of dm-granted xp or even dm-granted items for the sake of maintaining the consistency of my character and the story I'm building with and for him. I believe the others who walked away did so for the same reason because when a DM says "we continue without pvp" and you're in a party as an evil character and it's full of good characters who you can pretty assuredly beat you're not going to back down unless someone makes you.

I understand why the DM made the choice and I don't question it, but the DM also gave an option of "this is my ruling - if you don't like it, leave." So, I left...and Bass left...and Mouse left...and Velenya left...and Jared left. Why? Well, for two of the characters our roleplay had basically been determined for us beyond our control and why bother playing if our characters are just going to be hijacked? For the other three? Well, at least two of them trust Bass and Voss and kinda felt that they didn't want to stick around with a bunch of people they don't know and can't trust. For the last, well, he follows Velenya wherever she goes. That was 5 players out of what? 13 or more?

That still leaves the DM with at least 7 or 8 players - an amount most DMs wouldn't have more than in the party to begin with and for some reason these five players leaving caused the event to end? How is that?

If the DM decided to end the event with those players leaving they did so as a -choice- not because they were forced. Much like none of us left the event because we were forced. We -chose- not to compromise rp for the sake of a little bit of dm xp. And I'd make the same choice again any day. Not only that, but on the forums and in tells in game it was understood by us and the DM that pvp was entirely possible and eve -likely- given the roster signed up for the event. And that was before people who weren't on the original roster began showing up.

The take away?

Once again, certain players try to hide behind OOC shields to protect them from the consequences of In-character actions and shatter the immersion of every player around them for the sake of getting their way. You know what kind of PVP breaks rp and shuts your character out of reacting? When a player simply hostiles you, walks up, and kills you. No talking, no warnings, no threats. You know what kind of PVP I have yet to see take place on any of my characters? THAT kind. Bass -warned- that character before he ever took action. He gave that character a -choice- and promised consequences depending on the choice made. That is not a higher level pushing pvp. That's you making a choice to engage in pvp when your character could have avoided it. If your character is dead-set on doing whatever it is they're told to stop, then they've accepted the consequences. You must as well. If you're not able to accept those consequences then you should not play your character in such a way as to suggest that they do. (In short, if you're going to cry OOC when a character keeps their promise to you, don't force them to keep it.)

I want everyone to consider something from this event. Had the DM ruled differently, what would've happened? Bass and Voss would've continued to be a potential pvp threat, and Bass - the more experienced, epic-level character - would lead the party through whatever trials they faced to a successful finish. Would there be conflict? Undoubtedly, but up until that point Bass had led and kept the party in motion and if his rp was so blocking to others in the party why is it that the ranger managed to go off on her own and find an alternative solution while everyone was squabbling? Why is it that only -the- person he warned in-character was subject to pvp and not every character that he professed a dislike or annoyance for?

Had the DM ruled differently at most 3 people would've left the event from what it seemed to me. And honestly, it's likely none of those 3 would because they've demonstrated that to them the rp xp from the event was more important than remaining true to their character (based on the fact that these players would rather throw ooc hate at other players than recognize the choice that was given and made and why it was made). Would the event still have ended? No way to know. Would fewer people have felt like they wasted their time? Absolutely. Would the DM be more satisfied? I believe so. Would immersion have been shattered so completely as it had been for the satisfaction of a single player's ego? I doubt it.

In short: I don't blame the DM for what happened. A choice was given and made. If said DM expected the players to compromise their character's rp for the sake of event xp...then I guess it's clear now that with some people that just won't happen. Someone during the event mentioned that it was the DM's event so they chose how everything happened. I wanted to argue then, but I didn't. So I will here. A DM does not tell the characters how to rp - that is not their job. Their job is to provide the characters with stimuli to react to. That's why it's called an "event" and not a "rehearsal." When a DM says: "No PvP for the rest of this event" - they are telling characters how they must react to the stimuli and overstepping their bounds. However, if a DM chooses to do this in their own event, then by every right they can. But when players leave because they make this choice they have as much right to complain about it as players who complain about the in-character consequences their characters bring on themselves do.

[sinisteromnibus]

Oh, and before anyone cries clique or "your group plays together all the time so you're just looking out for one another" I have screenshots from the entire thing as it happened. Anyone curious to see them to make your own judgments feel free to let me know. That's how confident I am that BS doesn't smell like roses or look like gold.

[aceheart]

Once upon a time, it was said that the ultimate goal of CD was to provide fun for a maximum number of people.

[tenorgeneral]

I'm just going to say one thing:  For me, this really doesn't justify walls of text.  Stuff happened, people have their opinions, there are facts to the series of events, and it's over.  

As far as Ana's actions, if you are 100% sure you know her motivations and assumptions, by all means ascribe motives to her actions.  If you're not because you don't play her or interact with her often, then perhaps assumptions are not the best way to go.

[Remmy]

I was having fun and saw absolutely nothing wrong with the RP as was presented. I have been integrating very slowly with the Stonehaven crew for over a month now, and knew of them for almost one before that. My guy is an outsider who is grating to some of them because he has differing views and the like, but he has not been chased off nor unfairly treated, OOC'ly. If he steps out of line IC'ly he gets swatted down, IC'ly. I am perfectly happy with this. IC actions have IC consequences and despite being "toxic" Bass is not as hard to to play with unless you directly, repeatedly antagonize him for no reason or are a a nuisance to the player OOC'ly and let that bleed into IC interactions. I am not saying that it happened here, but I know it has happened in the past and when that happens it does become an aggravating problem.

Nothing that happened there was bad or OOC'ly disruptive in of itself.

And Notarurk those kind of posts are not helpful. These kinds of things need to be discussed when they happen or they just lead to resentment which causes flare ups in the future. Fun is subjective, as is what ruins that fun. There was no ruining of fun for a "maximum number of people," to my knowledge.

[aceheart]

It's not helpful to remind everyone of what a basic principle of the game is? If you think it was pointed at anyone in particular, that's your business.

My point is that, in the past, people have been told to suck it up, when maintaining a general amount of harmony or a maximum amount of enjoyment for as many people as possible, required getting off one's high horse of RP standards.

I've had this principle pointed out to me many times. Many others have as well. It's likely that it will have to happen again.

Discussing is fine, but, people need to take it easy, too.

[Deleted]

There is a continued problem of taking IC conflict and consequences as OOC.  If you have an issue in a DM event with the way a situation was handled don't drag it OOC and don't drag out a long argument with the DM.  I do believe that we have now circled back around to the original issue.  This is not a limited incident, and it is certainly not limited to interactions with Bass (or his "crew").

This is a HUGE pet peeve of mine.  Even without being there, the fact that a player (any player) took the consequence to a DM during the event to attempt to change the interaction is disrespectful to the DM and other players.  I have been known to kick players from events for similar actions.  If you have an issue, and don't like my immediate ruling, you may bring it up later.  I'm here to tell a story.  If you derail the plottrain due to IC actions, I will respond with IC consequences.  If you derail the event for OOC bickering, I will boot you from the event.  End of story.  I am not here to babysit you.  If you join in an event KNOWING another player/character with whom you do not get along is already involved, you need to reread an earlier post.

Sept 26, 2014 11:56:17 GMT -5  @belladonna said:

It's time to step back.  Ask the other player for breathing room--a mutual silent treatment, for example.  Give that other character space and don't engage in interactions with them unless you're willing to accept the IC consequences.

I could go into a long list of the passive-aggressive, self-fulfilling RP/actions that "prove" these IC conflicts are OOC (when they're not), but there's not enough Snapple in the world to convince me to open THAT can of worms.

Conflicts happen.  It's the truth of any extended period of interpersonal interaction.  It's how we respond as players to these conflicts that can make or break a server.

The only victim in this incident is Daphne, who I will be lending my Vorpal Drama-bane Maul of Smiting.  (Good grief woman, what were you thinking taking a quest with THAT MANY characters involved? j/k)

[aceheart]

Just as a follow-up to what I posted earlier: The fact that we actually have honest to goodness sign-up sheets for plots means this server isn't meant to be "hardcore".

[trylobyte]

Allow me to sum up some issues with the whole quest. My views, my opinions, my thoughts. As usual, they will be summed up in easy to argue bullet points.

1) Anyone invited by the DM to the quest has just as valid a reason to be there as anybody else. It doesn't matter if they signed up on the forums a month ahead of time or if they asked the DM five minutes beforehand and the DM said 'Sure, come along!' The only advantage conferred by signing up is that you're guaranteed a spot in the quest. Late-comers and last-minute substitutes are going to happen as long as no-shows do.

2) One problem I got a tell or two about involved players on lower-level characters feeling they were being totally shut out of interaction with the actual quest by the near-constant threats, intimidation, and implied violence coming out of high effective level PCs. Pushing the quest down a particular path and implying that anyone who doesn't listen to you deserves to die, even if totally in-character, makes people feel unwelcome and unwanted OOCly - As Notaturk said, we're not exactly a hardcore RP server here - and discourages interaction, especially if the person doing the intimidating can kill the person receiving it with no real difficulty. You say IC actions should have IC consequences, and yes, they should. But I also argue that it's the duty of high-level PCs not to swing their mechanical advantages around and browbeat low-level PCs, since then the high-levels are effectively immune to IC consequences themselves.

3)  Epic level characters are both a blessing and a curse to a quest.  On one hand they provide immense power and capability to a group.  On the other hand, it's all too easy for them to start dominating a quest with their massive mechanical power, top-tier equipment, and godly dice rolls.  This is something I've often had to struggle with on Aelie, who faces the same problem.  As a personal opinion, I feel that if an epic PC gets in a group with a lot of sub-epic characters they should be doing what they can to include and involve all the lower-levels rather than personally leading the charge and doing as much of it as possible themselves.  Yes it's faster and more efficient for the epic to bumrush everything, but it leaves a lot of people feeling like window-dressing.  Add PvP potential into the mix and that only amplifies things.

*  This is more informational than an argument, but open PvP is actually relatively new to this server.  Two years ago having a quest break down because of PvP issues would have been entirely unheard of - Conflicts still occurred but were handled differently.  There are still a lot of us old-timers that will be surprised and even a bit offended by people freely exercising mechanical PvP because we're just not used to it, and a lot of DMs that just don't like seeing it happen.  In my own personal experience, no matter the game or the skill of the players involved mechanical PvP tends to create a lot of drama unless handled perfectly between two consenting parties, so I try to avoid it if at all possible.

[SOC_Tessa]

forums.cormyrdalelands.com/index.php?topic=8

I think it's disrespectful for people that can't be assed to sign up on a forum for a quest, bitch and moan about joining it only to be intentionally an irritation toward characters that signed up for it in advance.

People joining quests spontaneously happens from time to time. Some DMs are open to it, others stick strictly to their sign ups. If there was a perceived issue with particular players, it shouldn't have been allowed to run course as long as it did. However, the problem then becomes "who do you exclude?" I signed on with Raina while the event was still empty of players. Zoey, who was one of the group the conflict and "intentional irritation" came from, signed up in advance as well.

I understand how Bass acts as a character, how Voss does and how much of a "might is right" Lord of the Flies thing they have going on. That's perfectly fine as a model and great if you are all having fun. I only take issue when it bleeds over to cover the enjoyment of others. Your line of reasoning is that Bass was in charge by virtue of being the most powerful and it was fine for anyone to challenge him and accept the consequences or leave. That was my issue exactly. At the behest of "maintaining rp integrity" it was fine to bully the other characters. I don't know how many times I've read over and over how this is a cooperative server, how ECL or level shouldn't matter, but you cannot say what happened today was not the result of strong-arming.

At this point the rational, logical continuation of the event would be for the character that just got bloodied to either seek revenge for the slight, bow down and back off to quietly brood and potentially come up with a way to unmake him, or decide this man is unstable and walk away from the event, losing a little bit of rp xp but maintaining the character's consistency.

So it's "leave my event because I want to role play my way and you're in the way"?

Instead it appears the player's first response was to immediately take up an out-of-character complaint with the DM that ultimately derailed the event to the point where -every- player involved was left only with the option of compromising their character's personality and rp or walking away.

This is a HUGE pet peeve of mine. Even without being there, the fact that a player (any player) took the consequence to a DM during the event to attempt to change the interaction is disrespectful to the DM and other players.

Is there evidence that any player made an OOC complaint about the PvP, or is this undue mudslinging? I would argue myself that the plot was derailed from the constant threats being thrown IC left and right (and there was a single OOC one I caught that was in reference to player, not character intelligence). A DM is not running an event to babysit or watch pvp arena warfare. They are there with a story and an agenda. Apologies if you feel this compromises your character, but some massaging needs to be done or overlooked for the sake of everyone's enjoyment.

That still leaves the DM with at least 7 or 8 players - an amount most DMs wouldn't have more than in the party to begin with and for some reason these five players leaving caused the event to end? How is that?

If the DM decided to end the event with those players leaving they did so as a -choice- not because they were forced.

We didn't leave the event. The DM decided to postpone it (to an as of yet determined date) because of how horribly derailed it had gotten. It was supposed to be about a hired group investigating a strange plague and not the "Bass and Friends Happy Time Fun Show". Integrity, again, is fine, but it has to be tempered knowing that the story isn't just yours, but a collaborative effort.

Bass and Voss would've continued to be a potential pvp threat, and Bass - the more experienced, epic-level character - would lead the party through whatever trials they faced to a successful finish.

With every future party decision having to be run by the "more experienced, epic level character" first or suffering his disdain or wrath? This wasn't a war scenario, it was an investigation. One of the popular DM checks and balances in PnP is the concept of sharing the spotlight. During a game session (in this case an event), a DM should aim to let everyone have a chance to shine in some way. Maybe the group rogue can handle that rusty lock? Maybe the ranger can ask the animals what they saw? Big bad boss enemy? Barbarian has it covered. But try as a DM might to create these opportunities, the players still need to recognize them and know when to step back and pass the spotlight. That's how collaborative storytelling works.

That doesn't mean you have to stop being an asshole in character, but it is more respectful to know when to back down and perhaps tick a check box in your head to sulk about it or get even later.

why is it that the ranger managed to go off on her own and find an alternative solution while everyone was squabbling?

I did that as per DM direction in response to a skill check, and the whole thing actually flared up in the short span I stepped away from the group. But it was an over-boiling pot from the start, and if things hadn't flared up then, they surely would have later.

If said DM expected the players to compromise their character's rp for the sake of event xp...then I guess it's clear now that with some people that just won't happen.

I cannot speak for everyone, but I mainly go to events to enjoy myself and the story the DM put together. I'm not going "for the sake of event xp".

Once upon a time, it was said that the ultimate goal of CD was to provide fun for a maximum number of people.

My point is that, in the past, people have been told to suck it up, when maintaining a general amount of harmony or a maximum amount of enjoyment for as many people as possible, required getting off one's high horse of RP standards.

I've had this principle pointed out to me many times. Many others have as well. It's likely that it will have to happen again.

This sums it up succinctly. If your character behaving a disruptive way is going rain on the parade of the majority of the group, maybe it is best to find an alternative approach that still fits your character.

There was no ruining of fun for a "maximum number of people," to my knowledge.

Did you miss the part where the group broke apart, the DM called off the event and everyone shuffled offline because of the sour taste it left?

[Nevermore]

I am the DM of the talked about quest. I HATE conflict especially among friends. I am a new DM and also a human. I am Positive I made a mistake, and for that I am sorry and will continue to learn and grow in my DMing. 

That being said. Some of the words and tones on this post are very aggressive and in some areas quite hurtfull. Also some of the things stated never happened. 

I am more than open to talk about what happend and explain what happened on my end from my point of view. I also encourage anyone who feels the need to refer to the admins if it is felt needed over this issue.

At this time all I want is for there to be no conflicts in and out of character.  

Thank you for your understanding, Nevermore

[dom101]

Oct 5, 2014 18:18:25 GMT -5 trylobyte said:

Allow me to sum up some issues with the whole quest. My views, my opinions, my thoughts. As usual, they will be summed up in easy to argue bullet points.

1) Anyone invited by the DM to the quest has just as valid a reason to be there as anybody else. It doesn't matter if they signed up on the forums a month ahead of time or if they asked the DM five minutes beforehand and the DM said 'Sure, come along!' The only advantage conferred by signing up is that you're guaranteed a spot in the quest. Late-comers and last-minute substitutes are going to happen as long as no-shows do.

2) One problem I got a tell or two about involved players on lower-level characters feeling they were being totally shut out of interaction with the actual quest by the near-constant threats, intimidation, and implied violence coming out of high effective level PCs. Pushing the quest down a particular path and implying that anyone who doesn't listen to you deserves to die, even if totally in-character, makes people feel unwelcome and unwanted OOCly - As Notaturk said, we're not exactly a hardcore RP server here - and discourages interaction, especially if the person doing the intimidating can kill the person receiving it with no real difficulty. You say IC actions should have IC consequences, and yes, they should. But I also argue that it's the duty of high-level PCs not to swing their mechanical advantages around and browbeat low-level PCs, since then the high-levels are effectively immune to IC consequences themselves.

3)  Epic level characters are both a blessing and a curse to a quest.  On one hand they provide immense power and capability to a group.  On the other hand, it's all too easy for them to start dominating a quest with their massive mechanical power, top-tier equipment, and godly dice rolls.  This is something I've often had to struggle with on Aelie, who faces the same problem.  As a personal opinion, I feel that if an epic PC gets in a group with a lot of sub-epic characters they should be doing what they can to include and involve all the lower-levels rather than personally leading the charge and doing as much of it as possible themselves.  Yes it's faster and more efficient for the epic to bumrush everything, but it leaves a lot of people feeling like window-dressing.  Add PvP potential into the mix and that only amplifies things.

*  This is more informational than an argument, but open PvP is actually relatively new to this server.  Two years ago having a quest break down because of PvP issues would have been entirely unheard of - Conflicts still occurred but were handled differently.  There are still a lot of us old-timers that will be surprised and even a bit offended by people freely exercising mechanical PvP because we're just not used to it, and a lot of DMs that just don't like seeing it happen.  In my own personal experience, no matter the game or the skill of the players involved mechanical PvP tends to create a lot of drama unless handled perfectly between two consenting parties, so I try to avoid it if at all possible.

So to sum it up for you in tl;dr.  You're better than me in every possible way, and never 'take charge' of a quest or brow-beat lower level players.  Got it.  As I said, which I believe will be good for every future quest that certain people slog their vapid characters into at any chance; I will not make another attempt to get into an announced quest (Unless directly invited by those involved).  I apologize that I went out of my way, conferred with said DM about it before hand that conflict was a real possibility and was told it would be handled appropriately IC; then attempted to join a group event.  I am more than happy to resume hanging in my own little RP corner, taking fairy-ticks in order to mechanically advance.  Some of us don't need DM XP to feel fulfilled.  And just because you, yourself aren't involved in 'hard core rp' (what ever that even means?) doesn't mean some people don't (however silly the theory) take their ability to be consistent with their RP seriously.  Even in DM events.  I wont dumb down the ideals I have of my character, because people can't handle being in that character's presence.  No matter how much RP XP is being offered.  People knew Bass was involved in the event as he was one of those that 'so pointlessly' signed up.  The fact that they're even remotely surprised by how he/I acted in the event, is quite hilarious to me.  That's like going into a dungeon with a dragon and being amazed he bothered fighting back!  YOU KNEW IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.  

At least to his credit, Tenor didn't seem overly stressed about the situation (AND IT INVOLVED HIM DIRECTLY) ... he may have said something in tells to another, but as far as I saw, it wasn't anything that surprised him.  And I appreciate that more than I may be able to let on at the moment.

Regardless, I tried to add some fun to the event and utterly failed through actions and reactions.  I apologize to Nevermore if my RP caused a derailing and ultimately ruined her event.  I was told my character would be given hard-coded restrictions in said event, and I chose to leave.  I can't claim responsibility for how any others reacted to this situation.  I would have preferred if those four that left with me had stayed involved, and I told them as much.  I've never placed a priority on gaining RP XP, but I would like to see those that enjoy RP with me aren't restricted from interacting with others.  Or forced to abstain from gaining RP Xp because of my influence, however indirectly.

[onivel]

Oct 5, 2014 17:02:38 GMT -5 sinisteromnibus said:

Oct 5, 2014 16:28:28 GMT -5 dom101 said:

I think it's disrespectful for people that can't be assed to sign up on a forum for a quest, bitch and moan about joining it only to be intentionally an irritation toward characters that signed up for it in advance.  This in no way refers to you personally.

As for my part, I play a toxic character.  I didn't use it as a convenient vehicle to pvp.  But if the shoe fits, I'm gonna wear that fucking thing till the sole falls off.  I bowed out of an event that was turning my toxic character to act against what I intended for.  I'm not going to degrade my RP to put up with people I have zero tolerance for.  IC or OOC.  I apologize if my doing as I was asked, ruined an event for anyone else that was pre-signed on.  The others?  I couldn't care less.

This was the very epitome of why I don't bother signing on to events on C/D.  It was also my first sign on, as stated.  It will be the last.

Precisely my feelings as well. IF the character that created the initial conflict in the first place had originally been in the roster for the event it would be easier to side with those who say characters should be protected from the in-character repercussions of their actions, but let's look at what -actually- happened in two very good examples.

1. Voss kills any potential captives, making interrogation difficult - if not impossible. This, in turn, pisses off Zoey who had been trying to take a captive. Zoey responds to Voss' in-character actions with threatening pvp against him. As a player I -could- have complained OOC that Zoey is a higher level than me and I feel like my RP is being confined by virtue of the fact that pvp with Zoey blocks off avenues for my character to behave as he (and I) want him to. Should it be expected that Zoey just magically changes her mind and decides "Oh, it's fine. Go ahead and kill them. I wanted to kill you a few moments ago but I don't anymore. Not sure why, but there you have it." No more than it should be expected for a paladin not to slay a fiend that's killing a baby in front of him. Some things simply break the setting and the RP of other characters far too much to be allowed. Had Zoey PVPed Voss and Voss lost you know what I'd do? Have him behave like she wants! Why? Because realistically as a character he's not going to keep pushing a conflict he can't win because HE'S NOT A FUCKING IDIOT. (seriously, even with 10 wis death is a pretty persuasive argument.)

Minor Correction here... with Voss's ECL he is higher than Zoey. And I was fully prepared for IC consequences when I had her threaten him because she was rightfully pissed off. I also was a little OOCly pissed off as you stated you did something would have opposed instead of stating you were trying to do something in which case we could have made opposed rolls for it. Next time you plan to do something, please give someone the courtesy of trying to oppose the action instead of simply stating it. You could have stated " Voss then tries to cleave the guys head off " instead of just stating he did so. That left me no room to try to oppose the action and borders on god modding. I rolled with it and assumed then that she failed to notice his intent and simply followed up with her next course of action which was to threaten him. That said, in future I hope you do take things such as this in consideration as it borders on godmodding. 

As far as the quest goes.... I told the DM it was their quest.. their ruling. We needed to abide or drop. The DM will always have my support in such decisions even if I disagree with it.

[Deleted]

Oct 5, 2014 18:57:47 GMT -5 onivel said:

As far as the quest goes.... I told the DM it was their quest.. their ruling. We needed to abide or drop. The DM will always have my support in such decisions even if I disagree with it.

This.  Thank you.

[onivel]

Incidentally.. considering how the event broke apart I am considering it to have never happened unless you wish to proceed otherwise.