OCastitatisLilium said:Besides, again you can't ban nor punish someone for mere guidelines as they are not rules.
Not sure why one would think that. Also the EQ PNP does say they are rules:
Play Nice Policies: A revision to the GM/Guide FAQ and Rules of Conduct.
Not that they would even need to be labeled as such to be punishable. I'd bet the terms of service for the game will include the following catch all that this site currently does, reserving their full authority to do as they wish with their service on a case by case basis:
VR reserves the right to suspend, change, or cease the service (including, but not limited to, the availability of any support, item, function, feature, database, or Content) at any time for any reason or no reason. The Company may also restrict access to parts or all of the website or game without notice or liability.
Yes. Community policing is a naive wish, unless there are serious ways for players to combat instigators in game. A way that I've seen this done successfully is a "Skull" system in an old game called Tibia. If you attack and/or kill another player you get a skull for 10 minutes and are unable to log out until the combat timer ends. While you have this skull you can be attacked without repercussions (the other player obviously gains a combat timer for entering into PvP), and if you kill the skulled player you don't get a strike on your account for unjustified killing. If the instigator gets three unjust kills in a matter of hours or days they gain a black skull for 30 days of in-game time, where if they are killed they lose all items on their character. On the server I played there was an anti-PK guild that would track these players swiftly and kill them without question. The system allowed for the community to punish those players, and the skull system did the work of showing who the instigators were.
Another way that I personally found fun to combat instigators was in Archeage. If you wronged another player you could take them to court, where the judges were certain players, and you could plead your case against the instigator. Depending on the crime the judges could dole out a fitting punishment.
The more you try to police something, or control someone, the more people will do the opposite. If they have no repercussions other than someone crying in General chat or the forums about them, they will simply make another character. If the system allows for trolling, it should also allow for anti-trolling.
stellarmind said: sooooo its dnd but without the chaotic good or evil and lawful evil. ye im not feeling a world of lawful goods and neutrals. #freerpfrompnp
There's plenty of evil and chaotic. They are the ones the groups of heros kill ;^)
In seriousness, I can see people role-playing chaotic good or lawful evil, they will just need to suppress the more disruptive elements in order to not be a-holes and cause trouble. Much like they would were it 'real'.
I've seen Dungeons and Dragons campaigns played with evil groups. Funnily enough it doesn't last long. And a 'chaotic group' is an understandable oxymoron that can last even less time, even if 'good'. "I want to go this way!" "But, I want to go this way!" Campaign over. Bye everyone.
The odd bit of chaos is fun. Even the odd evil tendancy. It just doesn't work in a community in any sustained way and doesn't excuse 'real' bad behaviour.
Sorry - got serious there for a second.
EVIL AND CHAOS WILL BE DESTROYED!!!!111!!11ONE
Kaynrath: I agree with there being Policies ONLY against hacking and major exploits,
There have to be policies in place to protect people directly. It is no longer acceptable for racial slurs or threats of violence and a lot of other stuff that happens while playing any game with an mmo content. There are more reasons than just hacking and exploits to consider. Just because Pantheon is a game it does not mean conduct policies should not exist. People need to know that their actions and words will have real consequences. Social policing will not work for the minority of people who seem to like inflicting distress on people. People willing to cause conflict with others do not care about whether they are liked in game or not and will always have a group of people that will allow them to play without consequence anyway.
The punishment that will affect such people can only come from VR. The buck really stops there. Policies need to be in place to prevent anti-social behaviour. Social policing, fine, but back it up with real teeth and for Pantheon, that can only come from VR.
disposalist said:I've seen Dungeons and Dragons campaigns played with evil groups. Funnily enough it doesn't last long. And a 'chaotic group' is an understandable oxymoron that can last even less time, even if 'good'. "I want to go this way!" "But, I want to go this way!" Campaign over. Bye everyone.
The odd bit of chaos is fun. Even the odd evil tendancy. It just doesn't work in a community in any sustained way and doesn't excuse 'real' bad behaviour.
Your example is complete subjective experience and so backwards from reality I can only imagine it is a lie or you just don't play much. In two decades of tabletop gaming I have had a number of multi year long campaigns of evil. I have also had new groups explode because two LG characters have conflicting ideas of LG. One wants to defend the law of the land, one wants to defend the law of their deity. Some new players think the game will go single player for them, it happens.
My last evil campaign was a paladin of bane was a hero of the country. Bane being the tyrant god. My political influence grew as a righteous Paladin who claimed Bane was just trying to bring peace to the world. When the option arose I would always take backroom deals to aid my church. Protecting the dirty secrets of nobles for personal gain. My glory culminated with a large scale fight in the underdark where I overthrew an evil drow city. Slaughtered drow with the help of their freed slaves. I inspired the slaves to join the militia under my control for further glory. They were only cannon fodder for the war to help protect my main army of Banites I had been training that by the end of the campaign was almost an SS unit.
As the campaign slowly went darker the other PCs in the party started to do the same just out of convienience and wealth. It was one of those that had twists we still bring up and joke about even though nearly two years have passed since it ended.
Going back to the thread. The two "LG" characters conflicting is effectively the PNP in a nutshell. They will weaponise your pnp to get what they want even if it ruins the game.
Jobeson said:They will weaponise your pnp to get what they want even if it ruins the game.
For example? Failing to see how this could be more problematic than lawless/anything goes/might makes right gameplay. No matter the system people will push the limits and they can push a hell of a lot further when there are no boundaries at all.
Jobeson said:disposalist said:I've seen Dungeons and Dragons campaigns played with evil groups. Funnily enough it doesn't last long. And a 'chaotic group' is an understandable oxymoron that can last even less time, even if 'good'. "I want to go this way!" "But, I want to go this way!" Campaign over. Bye everyone.
The odd bit of chaos is fun. Even the odd evil tendancy. It just doesn't work in a community in any sustained way and doesn't excuse 'real' bad behaviour.
Your example is complete subjective experience and so backwards from reality I can only imagine it is a lie or you just don't play much.
Yes examples do tend to the subjective, just like yours, but wow; I must be either a liar or just not as experienced as you? Coo. Ironic in a discussion of playing nice.
Jobeson said:In two decades of tabletop gaming I have had a number of multi year long campaigns of evil. I have also had new groups explode because two LG characters have conflicting ideas of LG. One wants to defend the law of the land, one wants to defend the law of their deity. Some new players think the game will go single player for them, it happens.
My last evil campaign was a paladin of bane was a hero of the country. Bane being the tyrant god. My political influence grew as a righteous Paladin who claimed Bane was just trying to bring peace to the world. When the option arose I would always take backroom deals to aid my church. Protecting the dirty secrets of nobles for personal gain. My glory culminated with a large scale fight in the underdark where I overthrew an evil drow city. Slaughtered drow with the help of their freed slaves. I inspired the slaves to join the militia under my control for further glory. They were only cannon fodder for the war to help protect my main army of Banites I had been training that by the end of the campaign was almost an SS unit.
As the campaign slowly went darker the other PCs in the party started to do the same just out of convienience and wealth. It was one of those that had twists we still bring up and joke about even though nearly two years have passed since it ended.
Is it supposed to be irony that you say "Some new players think the game will go single player for them" and then describe a campaign that sounds like it was you, solo?
Was it just you and a pliable DM? Or did your party just do exactly what you said all the time? On pain of death, I guess, if you're role-playing Lawful Evil. Or were they all LE followers of Bane?
Jobeson said:Going back to the thread. The two "LG" characters conflicting is effectively the PNP in a nutshell. They will weaponise your pnp to get what they want even if it ruins the game.
Lol. Yes LG characters can be prickly. They tend to not resort to murdering the rest of the group, though, or just about anything to get their way. LG characters will much more likely come to an agreement, however short term, for the good of whatever the current cause is without resorting to anything too unpleasant that would disrupt the group.
But either way, all of that makes my point well, thankyou. Role-playing is not an excuse for being an a-hole, whatever the alignment, really (but *much* more likely to be troublesome is evil and chaotic, by its nature).
As for "weaponise your pnp". Lol. The PNP is there to avoid ruining the game. Unless by "ruining the game" you mean not letting you do anything you want even at the expense of others' experience?
stellarmind said: muh wild magic sorcerer would violate pnp huh? rip. whats the difference between good and evil? one just lived past the expiration date. tbh lawlessness works fine for pvp servers. there is 20 years of supporting data. pvpers establish an unwritten rule. i dont know too much about having to play under a pnp but if i cant be a wild magic sorcerer im ouuuuuttt back to the laws of lawlessness.
Yes there's lots that works fine in PvP servers that doesn't in PvE.
What's a "wild magic sorcerer"? And how do they violate PNP?
Iksar said:Jobeson said:They will weaponise your pnp to get what they want even if it ruins the game.
For example? Failing to see how this could be more problematic than lawless/anything goes/might makes right gameplay. No matter the system people will push the limits and they can push a hell of a lot further when there are no boundaries at all.
As has been said dozens of times in the past on this thread. The Play nice Policies are not about hacking the games or screaming racial slurs or threats in a chat, even intentionally training players are hardline rules that fall under the TOS or what have you.
Play nice policies are about enforcing sharing. A single guild can't raid every week because they have to give other people a turn from time to time. If its primetime and you have a camp I want, I can force a GM to arbitrate a "compromise" and force you give up the camp to my group. The people who use the PNP the most will be the ones taking back the ideal camp every day knowing people wont file the paperwork. PNPs are things that the vast majority of gamers fully ignore because they take the fun out of the game. It doesn't matter your group waited two hours for the camp to open up before going in. You are the sucker, you waited instead of arbitrated! (I am way too proud of this line)
Do you want a GM to force you to group with someone who wants the loot you are camping with your friends? Even if you hate the person they can say do it or give up the camp.
If I wanted to kill your faction's vendor that you and a dozen people are using along with a guard or two in that outpost all day I can do so. It is just "faction grinding." However if you try to stop me by buffing the NPCs you can be banned because RP has no place in the RPG when it comes to player interactions.
stellarmind said: sorry again kilsin... racial slurs and toxic behaviors is very subjective.
This kind of argument is made all the time by people trying to avoid a ban. If you say something that is toxic or racially charged you should understand what and why you are saying it, especially if you have been alive long enough to realize that what you are saying could be percieved as offensive.
I was in the Army as an infantry soldier for 4 years, I completely understand needing a thicker skin. But the older I got, I also realized that spouting off something despite taking other people into consideration wasn't worth the fallout that inevitibly came from it. I have been online since the early 90s, I have never been banned from a forum or game because I am careful in what I say and how I say it.
Every game has rules about how you should behave and what you should say to some extent.
disposalist said:Is it supposed to be irony that you say "Some new players think the game will go single player for them" and then describe a campaign that sounds like it was you, solo?
Was it just you and a pliable DM? Or did your party just do exactly what you said all the time? On pain of death, I guess, if you're role-playing Lawful Evil. Or were they all LE followers of Bane?
It was a full group there was one other paladin in the party early on who was a true rival. He died to an umberhulk early on sadly. His PC would have stopped many of the shenanigans we saw. I initially just wanted to expand the church of Bane, but his death opened the door for a grander plan. The remaining players had more or less neutral characters wanting gold or nobility or to save their family. They were easily bought by a wealthy patron. It came to a party vote on whether or not we work for the BBEG (who I had no dealings with at the time) or we follow the heroic path. I pushed for going more evil.
disposalist said:As for "weaponise your pnp". Lol. The PNP is there to avoid ruining the game. Unless by "ruining the game" you mean not letting you do anything you want even at the expense of others' experience?
What its designed for and what it does are two different things.
If I wanted a playground simulator where teacher won't let me swing because Suzy wants to swing I would certainly be on a list somewhere.
stellarmind said: i agree, but i think ppl need to be left to their own devices and decide for themselves. having someone force me to act and say things a certain way doesnt feel right, some ppl arent good with words..
I agree to some extent, but you also have to take into account that this is a business they are trying to keep open. If enough customers are upset at what is being said then the company does need to step in and take corrective actions if they want to keep those customers.
I have played quite a few PvP games (Shadowbane, Neocron, DAoC, played on a PvP server when WoW first came out) and honestly, almost all of them had some form of enforcement when it came to chat and even certain behavior. There was a few games that I can remember that I had to shut down the general chat because of how awful it was, and those games had reputations for that. Ultimately it is up to the game company on what they are going to allow. I really hope that this game has some form of rules that limits certain behavior and language just because I really don't like the environment that behavior fosters. In my experience, "community" policing doesn't work and I haven't seen it work in a game.
stellarmind said: ill point this out too since the discussion is here, ppl that support pnp havnt come up with way to enforce pnp that hasnt been broken down by 20 years of counter arguements. im neutral observer reading this. i understand the reasons for pnp, i even tried to offer solutions. if u really think pnp is a good thing then offer your solution to the thread and see how well it holds up to the counter arguements.
"ppl that support pnp havnt come up with way to enforce pnp that hasnt been broken down by 20 years of counter arguements"
PNP have been 'debunked' as an overall bad thing, have they? Objectively 'broken down'? Where do you get that from?
stellarmind said: walpurgis, its very touchy thing i get the whole deal of it. mmos is alot more punishing for pvpers that exihibit racial slurs and toxic behaviors becuase pvpers hold grudges. i will find you. i will kill you. i will make sure you know that if you ever leave a safe zone i will be there. until you say im sorry stellarsenpai for calling you a wet broke back asian, i am your little spank toy to be played with. toxic af right? dont start no shots there wont be no shots.
Nope not at all, slightly amusing but I don't think toxic. I take into account the intent and the source before becoming offended. If you get on any modern PvP game and start spouting racial slurs you will be banned eventually.
stellarmind said: walpurgis, lol ppl become are more careful with their words when it comes to pvp in mmos. we are persistent in the game space. it is much easier to hunt down individuals as annoymonity and decentralized community police is a deterrent. they already have a gun to their heads to "play nice". and i mean that by which an individual can choose to enforce a law punishable by death if they thinks its justifiable, like kstealing, camp hogging, ninja looting. in a shooter, fine because its just another match, moba? just another match. fighting game? same. any type if match making pvp, ppl are more brazen to spout nonsense. i just a get a ban play another game like it until it goes away. mmo pvpers dont have that luxury. ill admit the early days of pvp was very wild, but most modern day mmo pvpers operate in that "play vicious policy" and it really doesnt need to be said or put in stone. now before i get a knife to the throat for generalizing yes there are special cases. it does get super frustrating when mmo pvpers get lumped with other pvp matchmaking games. there is a very clear difference between the two as i am very much in the pvp space of the two.
I was talking about PvP MMoGs, I can't think of any PvP MMoG that you can get on and start spouting racial slurs willy nilly. I bet you dollars to doughnuts that the PvP server this game has will have rules against that behavior, most modern games (including MMos) do.