<!-- MHonArc v2.4.4 -->
<!--X-Subject: [MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun -->
<!--X-From-R13: QXbarfNnntvf.pbz -->
<!--X-Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 10:41:51 -0700 -->
<!--X-Message-Id: BF298EBEB7E5D111A3CE0060083E51864C8CDD#cinexch01,galic.com -->
<!--X-Content-Type: text/plain -->
<!--X-Head-End-->
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>MUD-Dev message, [MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</title>
<!-- meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow" -->
<link rev="made" href="mailto:CJones#aagis,com">
</head>
<body background="/backgrounds/paperback.gif" bgcolor="#ffffff"
text="#000000" link="#0000FF" alink="#FF0000" vlink="#006000">
<font size="+4" color="#804040">
<strong><em>MUD-Dev<br>mailing list archive</em></strong>
</font>
<br>
[ <a href="../">Other Periods</a>
| <a href="../../">Other mailing lists</a>
| <a href="/search.php3">Search</a>
]
<br clear=all><hr>
<!--X-Body-Begin-->
<!--X-User-Header-->
<!--X-User-Header-End-->
<!--X-TopPNI-->
Date:
[ <a href="msg00058.html">Previous</a>
| <a href="msg00060.html">Next</a>
]
Thread:
[ <a href="msg00329.html">Previous</a>
| <a href="msg00068.html">Next</a>
]
Index:
[ <A HREF="author.html#00059">Author</A>
| <A HREF="#00059">Date</A>
| <A HREF="thread.html#00059">Thread</A>
]
<!--X-TopPNI-End-->
<!--X-MsgBody-->
<!--X-Subject-Header-Begin-->
<H1>[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</H1>
<HR>
<!--X-Subject-Header-End-->
<!--X-Head-of-Message-->
<UL>
<LI><em>To</em>: <A HREF="mailto:mud-dev#kanga,nu">mud-dev#kanga,nu</A></LI>
<LI><em>Subject</em>: [MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</LI>
<LI><em>From</em>: <A HREF="mailto:CJones#aagis,com">CJones#aagis,com</A></LI>
<LI><em>Date</em>: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 13:44:15 -0400 </LI>
<LI><em>Reply-To</em>: <A HREF="mailto:mud-dev#kanga,nu">mud-dev#kanga,nu</A></LI>
</UL>
<!--X-Head-of-Message-End-->
<!--X-Head-Body-Sep-Begin-->
<HR>
<!--X-Head-Body-Sep-End-->
<!--X-Body-of-Message-->
<PRE>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Chatterley [<A HREF="mailto:matt#mpc,dyn.ml.org">mailto:matt#mpc,dyn.ml.org</A>]
> Sent: Monday, July 06, 1998 11:23 PM
> To: mud-dev#kanga,nu
> Subject: [MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun
>
---------8< snip >8--------
> An alternative of course, is to change our perception of normal,
> instead of a binary state (Normal, Criminal, or 0, 1), how about
> trinary? Back to the old Good, Neutral, Evil (no Chaos theory
> accepted at this time). You're evil if you do bad things (PS,
> PK). You're good if you kill a PKer, or return goods which a PS
> took, to their rightful owner. If you do neither, you are neutral
> (criminal status = -1, 0, 1 for Good, Neutral, Evil). If you are
> Good, and then PK or PS, you flick straight to evil (no
> 'adjustments'), but.. does that make sense? Now we only have a
> 'snapshot' of you - you were Good, but now, you're Evil!
> Decreased granularity can perhaps tackle this; the point is that
> if you ever PK, PS, or counter one of these crimes, you will
> *never* be 'normal' again. Punishment is doled out to the Evil
> (they get bashed by the Good). The Good are rewarded (bounties,
> and reward money). The Normal.. well.. anyone care to jump in?
I asked my wife this question, and with her explicit permission,
I'm including the log of our conversation (reordered in a few
places to make it more clear). This touches upon several topics
the list discussed over the past few weeks.
Note that she advocates a system that is less programatic and
instead relies on real people to provide a framework for a society.
Discussion of punishments was not really addressed, rather the
way to properly distinguish pkillers from the population. In
general, she is opposed to the idea of pkilling and claims that
she doesn't want to play on any MUD that espouses the practice,
but she also believes that it does have a place in good role-playing.
(I'm NQSChris, she's menagry.)
NQSChris (12:04:18 PM): Question, off topic, but
interesting. In one of the mailing lists I get,
MUD-DEV, the question is "how do you reward
players for being good/playing well." e.g., some
players p-kill, so we can set up punishments and
consequences, but how do you reward players who
don't p-kill?
menagry (12:04:55 PM): How about nifty weapons or
spells or magical items?
NQSChris (12:05:13 PM): Discounts at the shops, the
ability to be promoted to certain levels?
NQSChris (12:05:27 PM): Let's say that you let the
players have special magical weapons that only
work for "good" players.
menagry (12:05:41 PM): Yes.
NQSChris (12:05:52 PM): Can, or should, you create
weapons that work for evil players? Can you let an
evil enchanter make a sword for evil fighters?
menagry (12:06:17 PM): If they aren't p-killing then it
doesn't matter if they are good or evil.
NQSChris (12:06:59 PM): Ah. How do you define
good and evil? Example: thief is evil because he
steals from shops. Thief doesn't pkill, though he
might knock people out.
NQSChris (12:07:11 PM): He's evil, but he's not a
pkiller.
NQSChris (12:07:43 PM): Good knight gets into a
fight with the evil knight and slays him, but he didn't
pkill because he's on the side of good and justice.
menagry (12:07:43 PM): If he doesn't p-kill then his
good/evil rating is nothing.
NQSChris (12:07:53 PM): Thief is neutral, then.
menagry (12:08:35 PM): No, you're classifying things
wrong. A character's good/evil standing means
nothing. If they just p-kill for the sake of doing it,
that's different.
NQSChris (12:09:05 PM): Okay. In Ultima Online
(UO), there are a lot of players who got trapped
into pkilling, they become evil, and now they do it
for the save of pkilling.
NQSChris (12:09:35 PM): So you would recommend
instead saying: so and so is a good character, so
and so is an evil character. and so and so is an evil
character who pkills.
menagry (12:09:42 PM): It's different when anyone
goes around pkilling for the sake of. But an evil
player isn't necessarily a pkiller.
menagry (12:09:49 PM): Yes.
menagry (12:09:57 PM): evil does not equal pkiller.
NQSChris (12:10:02 PM): K. You can be an evil
priest who worships evil gods, but only sacrifices
willing victims/animals.
menagry (12:10:50 PM): It's a gray area and has to be
interpreted case by case but being evil does not
mean they are a pkiller. You need some evil or you
have no balance in the "world".
NQSChris (12:11:15 PM): A lot of games base the
idea of balance on the struggle of player vs monster.
Players are automatically good, monsters are
automatically evil.
menagry (12:12:04 PM): Yes, but it's no fun if you
only have monsters to worry about.
NQSChris (12:12:57 PM): So p-killing is an abhorent,
but good thing because it creates more tension in the
player world. It gives them reason to keep
interacting with other players, besides the "divide the
treasure" games.
menagry (12:14:17 PM): p-killing is bad (p-killing
meaning going around and just killing for the sake of
being stupid or annoying or just a jerk). Players
fighting each other (like over some treasure or a
woman or a misunderstanding or whatever) is
inevitable but not considered p-killing.
NQSChris (12:15:34 PM): UO, for instance, marks
you as a pkiller for a period of time. If you repeat
the offense within that period of time, you are
permanently marked as a pkiller. But if you instead
go off adventuring, or drinking in a tavern, your
mark eventually wears out and you are no longer
considered a pkiller. Is that a useful mechanism?
menagry (12:15:35 PM): There is a fine line, like I
said. It isn't just cut and dry.
menagry (12:16:39 PM): No, b/c some people could
be like Sturm and take offense easily therefore
needing to defend their honor. If that happens twice
in a row and they get labeled p-killer, they did
nothing wrong in the first place and got labeled
unfairly.
NQSChris (12:16:45 PM): We would all like it to be
cut and dry so we don't have to keep deciding that
"so and so" is a bad guy. :-) We're lazy that way.
menagry (12:17:21 PM): Well, it's just not that way so
you're gonna have to deal.
NQSChris (12:17:28 PM): :-)
NQSChris (12:17:17 PM): What about penance?
Sturm would definitely consider himself a penitent
and seek forgiveness from Paladine.
menagry (12:18:29 PM): Penance is fine but labelling
someone a p-killer for having killed X players over 2
days isn't fair.
NQSChris (12:18:56 PM): UO's model is something
like two or three players in 30 minutes. Any less
than that and the mark eventually fades.
menagry (12:19:07 PM): You get my point though.
menagry (12:19:20 PM): It's not simple. It needs to
be case by case.
NQSChris (12:19:39 PM): You would recommend a
"trial" or somesuch to permanently label a pkiller.
NQSChris (12:19:51 PM): If someone was playing a
good role, such as Sturm, then he wouldn't be a
pkiller.
NQSChris (12:20:02 PM): But if someone was playing
Charlie Manson, that character is a pkiller.
menagry (12:20:18 PM): P-killers by my definition are
rather obvious. Those who fall in the gray area are
the ones that need case by case evaluation.
NQSChris (12:21:02 PM): Okay. So we can apply a
metric to determine if someone is, but we can also
reverse pkiller status under review and/or penance.
menagry (12:21:13 PM): Yes.
menagry (12:21:27 PM): But you can't just say that
anyone who p-kills is a p-killer. It isn't that simple.
NQSChris (12:21:37 PM): Players involved in combat
for role-playing reasons aren't pkillers. Players
involved in combat for the purpose of terrorism,
bullying, or sociopathic reasons are pkillers.
menagry (12:22:00 PM): Basically.
NQSChris (12:22:35 PM): What about the temporary
pkiller brand? Say that your party fights another
player party over a treasure. You end up slaying
four people with your bow...
menagry (12:23:10 PM): Why are you being labeled a
p-killer? That's just part of the game. I never said
players wouldn't die.
NQSChris (12:23:47 PM): Right, players will and do
die.
NQSChris (12:23:11 PM): You now could have a
temporary pkiller brand. But within twelve hours of
game time (time you play, not real time), you go for
penance you can have the brand removed.
menagry (12:23:36 PM): That's stupid Chris. Self
defense. I'm not going for penance for defending
myself.
NQSChris (12:24:15 PM): Pkillers don't always initiate
hostilities, though.
menagry (12:24:15 PM): I'm talking about jerks who
go on for the express purpose of going around and
killing players to get their jollies.
NQSChris (12:24:39 PM): Those people should be
@gripe-d about, and then the referees should take
them aside, brand them, and give them all the
penalties.
menagry (12:25:10 PM): Yes. Otherwise it's no fun to
fight players if you're gonna be branded for doing
nothing wrong, even temporarily.
NQSChris (12:25:13 PM): In UO, ferinstance, if a
pkiller attacks you in town, the guards teleport in
and attack him. Programmed response, and not very
discriminatory, IMHO.
menagry (12:25:32 PM): Good in theory, bad in
practice.
NQSChris (12:25:51 PM): What if another player has
a vendetta out for you? They @gripe about you all
the time.
NQSChris (12:26:00 PM): I suppose both sides need
witnesses.
menagry (12:27:58 PM): Yes, it's a case by case thing
and people need to be "current" on the players to
know who's got a problem and who's just whining.
menagry (12:27:58 PM): Basically, the game needs to
be moderated.
NQSChris (12:28:33 PM): Regarding
moderators/referees: Are they drawn from the
player community (ala LambdaMOO) or from the
game administrators?
menagry (12:34:14 PM): Both.
In short, good, neutral, and evil are tags applied to how your
character is role-played. Pkill and not-pkill are flags applied
to your character by a responsible player or administrator. This
implies putting power into the hands of the players to dispense
a form of justice. What the community then does with the
player-killer is up to the whole, not the whim of the
administrator.
MUD societies work to a point, as in the case of LambdaMOO. Someone
eventually needs to be responsible that things get done, but with
the proper mechanisms in place, players can dispense much justice
and only rely on the administrators when something needs to be done
that requires permissions or privileges.
Chris
</PRE>
<!--X-Body-of-Message-End-->
<!--X-MsgBody-End-->
<!--X-Follow-Ups-->
<HR>
<ul compact><li><strong>Follow-Ups</strong>:
<ul>
<li><strong><A NAME="00068" HREF="msg00068.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong>
<ul compact><li><em>From:</em> Petri Virkkula <pvirkkul#cc,hut.fi></li></ul>
</UL></LI></UL>
<!--X-Follow-Ups-End-->
<!--X-References-->
<!--X-References-End-->
<!--X-BotPNI-->
<UL>
<LI>Prev by Date:
<STRONG><A HREF="msg00058.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: Ubiquity Scope & Requirements</A></STRONG>
</LI>
<LI>Next by Date:
<STRONG><A HREF="msg00060.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></STRONG>
</LI>
<LI>Prev by thread:
<STRONG><A HREF="msg00329.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></STRONG>
</LI>
<LI>Next by thread:
<STRONG><A HREF="msg00068.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></STRONG>
</LI>
<LI>Index(es):
<UL>
<LI><A HREF="index.html#00059"><STRONG>Date</STRONG></A></LI>
<LI><A HREF="thread.html#00059"><STRONG>Thread</STRONG></A></LI>
</UL>
</LI>
</UL>
<!--X-BotPNI-End-->
<!--X-User-Footer-->
<!--X-User-Footer-End-->
<ul><li>Thread context:
<BLOCKQUOTE><UL>
<LI><STRONG>[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</STRONG>, <EM>(continued)</EM>
<ul compact>
<ul compact>
<LI><strong><A NAME="00120" HREF="msg00120.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong>,
Marian Griffith <a href="mailto:gryphon#iaehv,nl">gryphon#iaehv,nl</a>, Thu 09 Jul 1998, 19:36 GMT
</LI>
<LI><strong><A NAME="00322" HREF="msg00322.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong>,
J C Lawrence <a href="mailto:claw#under,engr.sgi.com">claw#under,engr.sgi.com</a>, Thu 23 Jul 1998, 20:23 GMT
<UL>
<LI><strong><A NAME="00323" HREF="msg00323.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong>,
Caliban Tiresias Darklock <a href="mailto:caliban#darklock,com">caliban#darklock,com</a>, Thu 23 Jul 1998, 23:14 GMT
</LI>
<LI><strong><A NAME="00329" HREF="msg00329.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong>,
s001gmu <a href="mailto:s001gmu#nova,wright.edu">s001gmu#nova,wright.edu</a>, Fri 24 Jul 1998, 15:46 GMT
</LI>
</UL>
</LI>
</ul>
<LI><strong><A NAME="00059" HREF="msg00059.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong>,
CJones <a href="mailto:CJones#aagis,com">CJones#aagis,com</a>, Tue 07 Jul 1998, 17:41 GMT
<UL>
<LI><strong><A NAME="00068" HREF="msg00068.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong>,
Petri Virkkula <a href="mailto:pvirkkul#cc,hut.fi">pvirkkul#cc,hut.fi</a>, Wed 08 Jul 1998, 00:10 GMT
</LI>
</UL>
</LI>
<LI><strong><A NAME="00060" HREF="msg00060.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong>,
Koster, Raph <a href="mailto:rkoster#origin,ea.com">rkoster#origin,ea.com</a>, Tue 07 Jul 1998, 18:04 GMT
</LI>
<LI><strong><A NAME="00063" HREF="msg00063.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong>,
S. Patrick Gallaty <a href="mailto:choke#sirius,com">choke#sirius,com</a>, Tue 07 Jul 1998, 19:28 GMT
<UL>
<LI><strong><A NAME="00066" HREF="msg00066.html">[MUD-Dev] Re: WIRED: Kilers have more fun</A></strong>,
Adam Wiggins <a href="mailto:adam#angel,com">adam#angel,com</a>, Tue 07 Jul 1998, 21:13 GMT
</LI>
</UL>
</LI>
</ul>
</LI>
</UL></BLOCKQUOTE>
</ul>
<hr>
<center>
[ <a href="../">Other Periods</a>
| <a href="../../">Other mailing lists</a>
| <a href="/search.php3">Search</a>
]
</center>
<hr>
</body>
</html>