Consequences and Accountability - Discussion

[Ambrose Colquitt]

I can't respond to the original thread, as I don't have an account on this board. This seems like the most appropriate place to discuss Kat's post.

You character may have done something so terrible that it has they down the path where they will probably loose their life as a result.

...you MUST be prepared to accept Consequences and Accountability in a mature fashion.

While it may not be fair to you in your eyes to have your character killed for something they did, it may be equally not fair to the one it was done to for them not to die.

Accept accountability that it's part of your characters plan now as a consequence of what they did.

...And now they have to pay the piper.

Kat, could you clarify your remarks specifically with regard to god-moding? My interpretation of your post is that you believe I should allow other players to make decisions for my character whether or not I agree with them. That, to me, is the very essence of god-moding. How am I misunderstanding you?

[۞ KAT ۞ AKA Red Viper]

Not at all, you did not include the part where i mentioned people to stop and discuss the path that the character is going down.

It is after the discussion period what you posted comes into play.

It is assumed that after those involved have discussed what each side seems fair, reasonable and believeable that the person whose character did the initial action to get them into the situation accept what has come of their characters actions.

In the discussion, the player of the character in trouble may come to an understanding with the others involved why the consequences saught may be what they are. It is with that understanding that the player can understand their character is accountable for their actions and be more open on an OOC level to listen to the other side and an agreement from both parties can be reached.

Thank you for bringing this up, i've ammended my post in effort to relfect your question and clarifiy things for others.

[Ambrose Colquitt]

Thanks for the quick reply and for linking the two threads, Kat.

Jul 29, 2008 11:58:02 GMT -5 ۞ KAT ۞ AKA Red Viper said:

It is assumed that after those involved have discussed what each side seems fair, reasonable and believeable that the person whose character did the initial action to get them into the situation accept what has come of their characters actions.

The part I've underlined above is the only thing that still gives me pause. It implies that the "effect" player is, to some degree, wrong, and that the "cause" player is, to some degree, right. I'm not sure that's always going to be the case.

I've been in this situation before. A few months ago, a warlock put a curse on Ambrose that would lead to his death if he were to do something specific to activate it. At the time he was cursed, the warlock's player and I talked through what was happening and I accepted the curse, as the way it would be played was both fair and enjoyable. Later on, Ambrose figured out a way to turn the curse to his own advantage. With this in mind, the warlock attempted to remove the curse by whispering me that it was gone. That to me seemed unfair, and so we talked it over and came to the conclusion that the warlock would only be able to remove the curse under specific circumstances (line of sight, etc.). It left both of us the chance to have our characters do what we wanted them to do, and I think is a good example of the communication you're describing.

Now, let's take a step back. What if the warlock wanted to place a curse on Ambrose that I thought was a bad idea? Something that, for example, would make the character unplayable for a certain amount of time. I'm not interested in not being able to play my favorite character, so I wouldn't agree to that.

What would be the correct course of action in this case? I could talk to the player, tell them my concerns and what I don't want to happen to Colquitt. The player could just as easily come back to me with the argument that, as a much more powerful character (and she was, by a factor of 20 to 30 levels), there is no reason the warlock should not be able to lay whatever curse she wanted on Ambrose. In the end, we might not come up with any sort of compromise.

In this case, I would have to fall back on the god-mode rule. The only people who get to control my characters are myself and those to whom I specifically give permission. If the warlock were to insist that Ambrose was cursed, and were to tell other characters and players that he was cursed, would we agree that's god-moding? Should I, as Ambrose's player, simply accept what has happened to him?

What courses of action are available to me in this example? Really, I don't have any other than to decline the roleplay entirely. It's unfortunate, but we couldn't come up with a solution, my only recourse would be to take my character out of the situation. It's just as unfair for me to insist that Ambrose cannot be cursed and that the story continue, a point well made by Kat in the original thread.

I readily admit that this is an extreme example. We're talking absolutes: is a character cursed or is he not? From Kat's original thread: is a character dead or not? There isn't really a gray area to work within for either of those issues. Most of the conflicts we're talking about are going to be fine points that can and should be compromised.

I also realize that the specific situation being described in Kat's thread happened between members of the guild. Do the rules change when there is no workable option to simply decline the roleplay? I'm not sure; I've never been a member of an active RP guild.

I'm very interested in Kat's and others' opinions on the subject.

[valrae]

Here comes a long an annoyingly complicated post!

Ehh. I think we're all familiar with the ground rules:

• You can always throw a punch, but it's up to the other person whether it hits. Your jurisdiction in the game world ends at your character's skin. The other person should always be free to decline whatever it if your character is trying to do to them, regardless, even if for no other reason that the player isn't comfortable with what might happen.

• At the same time, it isn't fair to take intentional advantage of this in order to operate your character without consequences all the time.

But in a pinch, I would say the first rule is more important than the second, in order to insure the comfort and enjoyment of players, and avoid in some cases their characters going in directions other than intended.

In both cases though, if either of these two rules get ignored too frequently... Well, you're always free to simply stop RPing with that person.

When Guilds are involved it stops being quite that simple, since by definition Guildies have to agree to work in the same reality (more or less) as their peers, so people aren't able to compromise according to their wills on how to interpret certain events. Usually the person making these decisions is the GM, and usually it causes a little friction.

Anyway.

None of this is really outside the scope of the regular stuff we all have to deal with when we RP (though hopefully not frequently)

The reason why we're talking about this is because a compromise wasn't able to be reached between the two parties involved, and there was a rather messy schism formed because of it, a problem that was exacerbated because more than one person's IC reactions hinged on it.

Without going into details, there is a fairly significant grey area to deal with on the part of both parties. Regrettably it seems that things were not handled perfectly by either side.

But in the case that a guild member left the guild without any sort of IC explanation, I agree that it is left to the GM's to dictate the terms of how that particular story gap should be filled.

If the player in question had dictated their own terms for leaving the guild and explained things, I'm certain that would have been seen as the accepted reason, and the GM would have not have dictated anything, and play could have resumed.

As I understand it, however, the player expressed no desire to continue associating with the guild at all, which again, in my mind, leaves the GM with the obligation of how to fill that particular story gap.

Keep in mind that the "death" of this character only applies to members of the guild.

Outside players are not at all prohibited from interacting with him in any way they choose, and the Cats will never try to force their version of the events on anyone.

However if a Cat sees the character on the street, he is not there.

Again, it's very regrettable way for things to have been resolved, but it's the cleanest solution to the problem that was presented, given that no more communication between the two parties seems possible.


______________________________________________________
+As I'm sure you've all figured out by now, I am.... RAMMSTIEN!!!+

[۞ KAT ۞ AKA Red Viper]

i do try to be prompt

In the end, we might not come up with any sort of compromise

If that happens, then you should call in a neutral party to listen to both 'arguments' and see what ideas they can lend to the situation.

i stand by the fact that pretty near anything can be worked around in role-play. Even a death.

i want to stress that the post i made is not necessarily directed at any one event. It is simply a reminder to every role-player to have their character think before they act, and be prepared to handle the outcomes that may arise from those actions should it not be favorable in a mature fashion.

Communication.



(*Edited for spelling.)