Role Play Conference

[raynes]

First of all, this all is valuable discussion. Not for interpretations of different factions, but as discussion of different role playing consepts.



Isn't ignoring of a fact interpretation of lore? Isn't there something human in selection of own beliefs? It would take a scientific approach to come up with information without much bias. Are you scientist or priest or just another guy in crazy world?

I am with Eohlwyn - character needs to make sence only in it's own subjective logics. If they defy logics of the world, call them crazy or ignorant.


I would like to see theologic discussion IC rather than OOC <wink>

Isn't ignoring of a fact interpretation of lore?

No ignoring facts when interpreting something is called ignorance.

And Figgybee, I know quite a bit about religion and history. The thing that is key to interpretation is that one must have reasons for their interpretation. Not reasons like "because I think so", but reasons based upon some sort of information. Along with that if one doesn't agree with another’s interpretation of something, then they are obligated to provide reasons why the interpretation is wrong. For example:

I say that eohlwyn's interpretation of the Kami and Karavan reason for being enemies is wrong. I support that with the fact that no where in the lore does it say anything about the Kami being against the Karavan because they are enslaving the Matis and Tryker. I have also provided support for my dismissal of eohlwyn's interpretation by showing that the quote used said nothing about the reasoning that eohlwyn believes is correct.

Now if eohlwyn feels that my interpretation is incorrect, then he/she needs to provide me reasons why that is the case. Or if he/she feels that their interpretation is still correct even though I have disproved it, more evidence needs to be brought forward to support that. If that can't be done, then its in no way acceptable to continue using that interpretation. If it is used, then it again goes back to ignorance.

[dguy1]

I've thought about this some more and have come the the conclusion that if people want to rp where its ok to interpret everything as the see if, then who am I to argue. So from now on when someone says they are neutral, they aren't because I don't interpret that way. When someone says the Karavan aren't a strict religion, it won't matter because under my view they beleive the Karavan is a strict religion.

Sounds like a winning plan to me.

I thought for a minute there you got it. Then I realized you were being sarcastic.

[figgybee]

Now if eohlwyn feels that my interpretation is incorrect, then he/she needs to provide me reasons why that is the case. Or if he/she feels that their interpretation is still correct even though I have disproved it, more evidence needs to be brought forward to support that. If that can't be done, then its in no way acceptable to continue using that interpretation. If it is used, then it again goes back to ignorance.

"Prove why you shouldn't do as I tell you" is not a stance likely to win you many friends. Now you're free to interpret the lore as you please, and to have your opinion on how the game should be played, but you can't expect everyone else who plays on the server to fit in with how you want them to behave.

I'd refer you back to Takashi's post, and then ask exactly who you think you are to decide what is and isn't "acceptable".

[amcyr]

"Prove why you shouldn't do as I tell you" is not a stance likely to win you many friends. Now you're free to interpret the lore as you please, and to have your opinion on how the game should be played, but you can't expect everyone else who plays on the server to fit in with how you want them to behave.

I'd refer you back to Takashi's post, and then ask exactly who you think you are to decide what is and isn't "acceptable".

Sure. If some Tryker wants to refer to themself as an elf, and to Zorai as orcs, who am I to disagree.

Seriously, I think the game lore has to be taken somewhat into account, or we will get situations like above. Now I don't say some players may get the lore wrong, but if we notice such an error, we should explain it gently and i/c if possible.

[eohlwyn]

No ignoring facts when interpreting something is called ignorance. (clip) Now if eohlwyn feels that my interpretation is incorrect, then he/she needs to provide me reasons why that is the case. Or if he/she feels that their interpretation is still correct even though I have disproved it, more evidence needs to be brought forward to support that. If that can't be done, then its in no way acceptable to continue using that interpretation. If it is used, then it again goes back to ignorance.

Thank you for clearly identifying yourself as the sort of roleplayer I prefer not to roleplay with. In an intelligent circuit your means of saying that your way is right just above is also a thinly veiled way of saying no other way can be without being ignorant. This is a means of pressuring someone to battle on your level and subtly riling them, which leads to flame wars. Whether my example was "right" or "wrong" is a non issue at this point.

As I simply do not partake in those.

I respect your need for yourself to have more regulated definitions, but I believe the GM said it all.

Lore and what is or is not acceptable in interpretation is entirely an individual manner for each character. Not everyone is going to have read all the lore before committing to an IC ideology, and that's ok, so long as they're true to thier character.
No one has the right to say thier interpretation is right and others' aren't.

I would continue to sit here and beat a dead mektoub with you Raynes, but you are clearly ingrained in your philosophy, so instead I will respectfully agree to disagree, and simply refrain from r/ping with you in the future, as I prefer not to have others dictate my right or wrong interpretations of anything.
/bow Raynes
Thank you, sincerely, for a relatively adult debate.

(ps- and it's "she". I'ma girl. )

[figgybee]

Sure. If some Tryker wants to refer to themself as an elf, and to Zorai as orcs, who am I to disagree.

Seriously, I think the game lore has to be taken somewhat into account, or we will get situations like above. Now I don't say some players may get the lore wrong, but if we notice such an error, we should explain it gently and i/c if possible.

Oh, definitely... if someone makes a simple factual error while roleplaying (and i/c is always good). But I think we can all see that this is a step beyond that.

(ps, I thought the Zorai were the elves? )

[oldmess]

(ps, I thought the Zorai were the elves? )

The Tryker are the hobbits. Cute and cuddly until you mess with our homes. Then we bite your ankles really hard. Since we were once enslaved by the Matis, they would be the Orcs, except that now we get along with them.

Oh, and the Karavan are the Vorlons. Of course then Matis would be the Minbari. Oops; metaphor overboard. Darn those French guys for not sticking to a metaphor that we could all recognize!

<ooc>Personally, I think this entire debate about the lore has been really useful in terms of highlighting the different ways that different players see the world of Ryzom. Hopefully, even more goodness will come out of Saturday's conference as well.</ooc>

[raynes]

"Prove why you shouldn't do as I tell you" is not a stance likely to win you many friends. Now you're free to interpret the lore as you please, and to have your opinion on how the game should be played, but you can't expect everyone else who plays on the server to fit in with how you want them to behave.

I'd refer you back to Takashi's post, and then ask exactly who you think you are to decide what is and isn't "acceptable".

I don't decide what is acceptable. Facts, substance, and being able to give reasons for your position do. And I am not saying "prove why you shouldn't do as I tell you". I'm saying "give me reasoning supported by some facts as to why your intrepatation has some merit".

This conversation has gone far enough. It's very clear that the themes written in the storyline are going to be ignored by most rp'ers. Furthermore just because Takashi said that everyone is allowed to interpret things as they see fit, doesn't mean that it's ok to interpret things without reasoning behind them.

I am left to ask what is the purpose of this meeting? To setup some guidelines for RP in the game? What are you going to base those guidelines on? If everyone is intrepting things as they see fit and behaving according to them, how can you make rules? To talk about what the lore means? What's the purpose in that if no one is required to give any sort of support for their intreprations? To talk about some way communitcation so that events are easier to make happen? How can you make events if no one agrees on common themes in the storyline and RP community.

[sidusar]

I'm mostly going to have to agree with Eohlwyn on this one, because I've also seen the situations that she described; players getting into ooc fights over how the characters are 'supposed' to be played. It pretty much kills off all the enjoyment in RPing for a lot of people, including myself.
In the real world, there are usually lots of very different people with very different believes all considering themselves to be followers of the same religion. The difference is that all of them interpret that religion in a different way. I see no reason why this can't be so for Atys; characters following their chosen religion in whichever way they interpret that religion (which doesn't have to be how the person playing the character interprets it).

How can you make events if no one agrees on common themes in the storyline and RP community.

I wouldn't know, but as I see it, there simply is no other choice. It's impossible to make the whole playerbase agree on how to interpret the lore. Just you and I could probably debate forever about how strict the Karavan are without ever coming to an agreement. Now add a 100 more players and a dozen other subjects to that debate. Nothing's going to come out of that.
It would be really nice if we had a GM roleplaying the Karavan Commander (and Ma-Duk, and king Yrkanis, and a lot of other NPC's for that matter) to clearly communicate their wishes to the players. But we don't, the lore is all we have to go on, and people are going to interpret that lore in different ways.

[asaseth]

I say that eohlwyn's interpretation of the Kami and Karavan reason for being enemies is wrong. I support that with the fact that no where in the lore does it say anything about the Kami being against the Karavan because they are enslaving the Matis and Tryker. I have also provided support for my dismissal of eohlwyn's interpretation by showing that the quote used said nothing about the reasoning that eohlwyn believes is correct.

Now if eohlwyn feels that my interpretation is incorrect, then he/she needs to provide me reasons why that is the case. Or if he/she feels that their interpretation is still correct even though I have disproved it, more evidence needs to be brought forward to support that. If that can't be done, then its in no way acceptable to continue using that interpretation. If it is used, then it again goes back to ignorance.

Not quite ignorance. More along the lines of runing off of some pre-conceved notions, much like the characters would be when they had just left newbie island. Some may have the foresight to check the lore on the main page, and some may check the forums, but most just starting out, would only read what they find out in game, and while it has been a while since I was in newbie land, I think the Zorai greeters were saying that the Karavan were effecttively evil, from a cultural standpoint.

"Furthermore, years of Karavan gathering resources thanks to links with homins is beginning to wear down the planet's natural reserves. "
Between what the Greeters that people meet first-thing on Newbie Island, and this line, one can make an argument that the Karavan had enslaved those that follow them. There is also the fact that where-ever there is one of those Karavan hovering ships, there is a mass of Karavan and a bunch of Karavan followers, from all the homin tribes, wandering around.