Re: Moral implications within Ryzom
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:02 pm
Thanks for the incredible replies everyone. Its nice to see structured points and elegant prose rather than spam and flames everywhere!
I think Jyudas made a good point by saying that the only way you can properly police PKers is by having the game punish them. Fame loss or some other debilitation is a great deterrent. But really, we dont have much of a PKing faction within the game so I dont see that we need to concentrate on that issue just yet. Im not saying its not valid or important, just that its not the issue at hand.
Syne mentioned that there should be a separate level of morals for guild. I dispute that. What you take from your guild is up to what you want your character to take from it. Imagine a homin joins a neutral guild but has a tendancy towards the Kami side. The guild happens to align itself with other guilds who are more aligned with the Karavan. Surely it is the individual that chooses how they will deal with each instance.
In fact, scrap that. Its a rubbish example and I know it. Simplified, if you decide to be a sheep and follow what a guild lays down it is still a choice in exactly the same way as going against guild policy. It all boils down to character, not guild.
But I do agree that players develop an attachment to their characters after having built them up. And it does hurt when someone puts the smackdown on your character. Im an old school player though, and sometimes thats just the way things go. Especially in a roleplaying situation on Atys where being killed is such a small thing, Sanz doesnt really mind being killed. Maybe all that time being atomised will help him figure out the technology behind respawning.
Dekkert; what a fantastic post! It sorta puts everything I wrote in a different slant with good personal insight. If we were dealing with just plain old PKers I think Id have written a different opinion down but were dealing with people who want to play their own way and still keep to the spirit of the game. I think that takes a lot more guts and honour than someone just being a PKer. How we deal with it in-game is up to us. I will celebrate your massively intelligent post by destroying some brain cells tonight with copious amounts of alcohol of mixed variety.
sofiaoak,; I agree with what youre saying to an extent. Ive said this before, I dont think PvP will make the game better but I think the capacity to do it well will. Sure, we dont *need* it but the way the conflicts are escalating (this Infinity claiming rights to material sources is only a prelude to what will come with Outposts, if not open war.) we need a system to deal with the inevitabilities and I for one will be happy to see it, even if Sanz is probably not going to participate. I also agree with you that consentual PvP is a good idea, which is basically what Outposts will be. I hope to see neutral people being free to walk around the PvP areas in the roots and anywhere else without being attacked not because of the system but because of the community.
I think Jyudas made a good point by saying that the only way you can properly police PKers is by having the game punish them. Fame loss or some other debilitation is a great deterrent. But really, we dont have much of a PKing faction within the game so I dont see that we need to concentrate on that issue just yet. Im not saying its not valid or important, just that its not the issue at hand.
Syne mentioned that there should be a separate level of morals for guild. I dispute that. What you take from your guild is up to what you want your character to take from it. Imagine a homin joins a neutral guild but has a tendancy towards the Kami side. The guild happens to align itself with other guilds who are more aligned with the Karavan. Surely it is the individual that chooses how they will deal with each instance.
In fact, scrap that. Its a rubbish example and I know it. Simplified, if you decide to be a sheep and follow what a guild lays down it is still a choice in exactly the same way as going against guild policy. It all boils down to character, not guild.
But I do agree that players develop an attachment to their characters after having built them up. And it does hurt when someone puts the smackdown on your character. Im an old school player though, and sometimes thats just the way things go. Especially in a roleplaying situation on Atys where being killed is such a small thing, Sanz doesnt really mind being killed. Maybe all that time being atomised will help him figure out the technology behind respawning.
Dekkert; what a fantastic post! It sorta puts everything I wrote in a different slant with good personal insight. If we were dealing with just plain old PKers I think Id have written a different opinion down but were dealing with people who want to play their own way and still keep to the spirit of the game. I think that takes a lot more guts and honour than someone just being a PKer. How we deal with it in-game is up to us. I will celebrate your massively intelligent post by destroying some brain cells tonight with copious amounts of alcohol of mixed variety.
sofiaoak,; I agree with what youre saying to an extent. Ive said this before, I dont think PvP will make the game better but I think the capacity to do it well will. Sure, we dont *need* it but the way the conflicts are escalating (this Infinity claiming rights to material sources is only a prelude to what will come with Outposts, if not open war.) we need a system to deal with the inevitabilities and I for one will be happy to see it, even if Sanz is probably not going to participate. I also agree with you that consentual PvP is a good idea, which is basically what Outposts will be. I hope to see neutral people being free to walk around the PvP areas in the roots and anywhere else without being attacked not because of the system but because of the community.