Member Discussions

I have been pondering for a time, especially after the example given in a thread below about someone who walks in and kills a shopkeeper, how to prevent such things from happening in my MUD; and, more importantly, whether or not it is appropriate to do so.

Certain beliefs are ingrained from your childhood. Habits that are hard to break. Activities that are so common you hardly question why you do them, let alone how. Sort of like long-term subliminal programming or self-reinforcing hypnosis, except you do it yourself by repetition every day [why do you move your legs like that? Could you train yourself to walk another way? But WOULD you without some reason - and would you get it perfectly right on the first try?]. Common sense. I propose that whenever the player issues the commands for the character behaving in such a way, there be a chance of the character's inhibitions taking over, and preventing it [not a new idea, I know; but patience].

Some people insist that emotional attachment to our characters is bad. I disagree; I think that this attachment is what enables us to realistically roleplay their survival instinct [or, more accurately, prevents us from NOT roleplaying it]. Even when the "get mad" guy in Mystery Men daydreamed about throttling the mean old woman, he politely went away in the real world. I might contemplate killing a shopkeeper - but I would realize the negative personal effects on myself. And not only that, but how this would ruin the economy. My common sense would kick in before I could do anything. Why should my "player" [conscious mind, ruled by the whims of the moment] be allowed to overrule everything else that comprised my identity?

Well, I might be quick to act without thinking first. I might have other mental disorders or personality traits which would hinder my ability to control myself, or increase my likelihood to commit such actions. But what are the odds I would have survived to adulthood or a position of authority/training where I could pose such dangers, without someone else noticing and taking their own actions to give me therapy, assign a guardian for me, lock me up, or euthanize me? Especially in cultures that try hard to minimize law enforcement by programming their young to never commit crimes?

I am currently on a system that allows Volition, as a stat, based on the area one grew up in. Influences adversarial to the development of personalities willing to commit murder [or other legal infractions] would lower the maximum Volition one could have, and of course all people could have lower Volition if they wished [in not going against the "approved of" level]. And since the only people likely to go against this code decision are the ones not responsibly roleplaying every aspect of their characters in the first place, or actively trying to exploit a PK'ing chance, I would think complaints about the code/feature would be minimal. But I will not take this for granted; what do you think of it?

-FireCat

This sounds like a good idea, but I do have one query:

> I am currently on a system that allows Volition, as a
> stat, based on the area one grew up in.

Why "a stat", and not "a stat for each area/belief/etc"? And shouldn't be volition work both ways?

For example, given a fictional fantasy theme in which the humans and orcs have been fighting a thousand-year war, wouldn't it make sense that the two races actually have a negative volition towards each other? In such a situation, the orc raider should attack the human shopkeeper (assuming he felt he had a good chance of getting away with it) - it would be just as bad roleplaying not to as it would be for the human not to.

But then you have situations like the street thief, who has no problem with stealing from the shopkeeper, even though he would never dream of murdering him. That's just the way he's grown up.

This line of thinking would lead to some form of personal ethics, geared towards each character's upbringing. It would be initially determined by birth, but also by where you grew up, what sort of occupation you had, and finally by what you did once you started playing. While you might well allow players to override their character's beliefs, it should require a conscious effort, and quite possibly result in penalties (perhaps if you use any form of roleplaying exp, but maybe also in terms of "character guilt" or something similar). Of course I don't see a problem with character's being "desensitized" over a period of time, but they shouldn't jump from model citizen to serial killer without some pretty big reason.

I, personally, feel that it should be something that's roleplayed out by the character, not decided by the game mechanics. There are situations in which someone /might/ actually kill said shopkeeper, even though his/her normal common sense would keep him from doing something like that. So, unless your system would take into account any, and every, possible situation, I do not believe that a coded system would enhance roleplaying...assuming you have roleplaying, since the subject is in this forum.

-Pheralan

This line of thinking would lead to some form of personal ethics, geared towards each character's upbringing. It would be initially determined by birth, but also by where you grew up, what sort of occupation you had, and finally by what you did once you started playing.

Yes! Precisely on that, and on many points. But I am still thinking over whether I want to keep the more complicated idea in the TCP forums, or post it here too.

-FireCat

Killing a shopkeeper is very likely to be bad roleplay. On the other hand, it isn't *necessarily* bad roleplay. Shopkeepers *have* been killed in the real world in truly insane circumstances.

I would say that Volition could be a fine stat if you just don't want certain kinds of actions happening in your MUD, even if they could be justified in character. I feel this way about almost all pkill (at least, in MUDs where pkill has serious consequences for the one killed). I think that pkill can often be perfectly well justified within character, but causes so much heartache that I'd rather not see it unless both parties consent.

However, regarding the vicious slaughter of NPCs, I'd rather rely on social sanctions than roleplaying restrictions. I'd rather let the authorities have a chance of discovering who the killer was and taking appropriate action.

Greg

However, regarding the vicious slaughter of NPCs, I'd rather rely on social sanctions than roleplaying restrictions. I'd rather let the authorities have a chance of discovering who the killer was and taking appropriate action.

Why? Should there be a difference between PC's and NPC's, to the character?

-FireCat

There shouldn't be a difference between PC's and NPC's, but Pheralan is right, you can't really account for all situations in a stat that determines whether someone would or wouldn't pk in a given situation. At least I wouldn't think so.

I understand why you would feel this is a necessity, by why do you feel the need to make it an actual stat?

"I understand why you would feel this is a necessity, by why do you feel the need to make it an actual stat?"

To cut down on the need for staff members to be present and arbitrate every situation.

-FireCat

Here's a common problem on many MUDs

-Bob walks into Jim's Hardware. Bob asks for a list, checks prices, realizes he is 2 coins too short. Bob attacks Jim, splattering his various parts along the wall, then takes everything Jim had.

Okay, this is what FireCat does not want. But then the scenario plays like this

-Bob walks in, and gets Jim to fix his Toothpick of Detiny, and Jim breaks it. Bob pulls out the blades, and goes berserk, but is overwhelmed by the kindness of the old man's eyes, he walks away.

But now, if I play a non-perfect character, how does the stat situation take care of this RP conflict?

-Mark Kill-for-Cash is working for Pauverville militia for a bag of gold a month. Bob, a long time friend, asks Mark to take out Jim because of some complex process (Jim's niece ran off with Bob's brother or some such). He offers two months pay for Jim's head on a pike.

Now, Mark has been killing 'bad' guys in the view of the local town for over a year. But, two months pay for one head is pretty tempting.

Just a kink in forced limits on murder.

-Bob walks in, and gets Jim to fix his Toothpick of Detiny, and Jim breaks it. Bob pulls out the blades, and goes berserk, but is overwhelmed by the kindness of the old man's eyes, he walks away.

But now, if I play a non-perfect character, how does the stat situation take care of this RP conflict?

First of all, "overwhelmed by the kindness of the old man's eyes" has nothing to do with what I am proposing. The character being killed is not exerting any influence upon the potential attacker. It's entirely an inner conflict. A conflict within yourself.

Second, the kindness of the shopkeeper in question is irrelevant. His kindness brings nothing to the economy. His existence as a shopkeeper, does.

-Mark Kill-for-Cash is working for Pauverville militia for a bag of gold a month. Bob, a long time friend, asks Mark to take out Jim because of some complex process (Jim's niece ran off with Bob's brother or some such). He offers two months pay for Jim's head on a pike.

Now, Mark has been killing 'bad' guys in the view of the local town for over a year. But, two months pay for one head is pretty tempting.

It's also pre-meditated. So, we have to consider a LOT of other factors:

Is Mark a psychopathic individual that has merely been tolerated by the militia because he only kills who they want him to? (A fairly stupid decision on their part.) Because they cannot afford to eliminate him?

Does Mark allow this to continue because he needs the gold? Because the militia would kill him if he murdered anyone else?

Is Mark willing to risk the loss of further gold/employment, even death if that is true, for twice his usual monthly fee? Is he so unbalanced that he would give up his long-term existence at the town for short-term cash? (If so, this lends weight to the theory that the entire militia of Pauperville simply cannot afford to take him out, but even so, comparative costs must be considered by them.)

That Mark is a normal person, and not a psychopath who allows himself to be used to mutual ends for a time, is indeed a possibility. He might be serving the good of the town, instead of their mutual idea of 'bad' guys coinciding for the moment. If so, the pre-meditated nature of the crime would give him time to think about it, whereas "heat of the moment" crimes might have a chance of bypassing the Volition. However, this would also give the time to inform staff it was happening (in advance), which is exactly the kind of non-hasty RP'ing I do approve of.

If Mark is a psychopath, however, one really must needs consider how he grew up in the first place. Refer to my first post on the topic.

-FireCat