Verisimilitude: Roleplaying or just, "I do what I want!"

Yuuj · February 17, 2012

You'd need a lot of information to take these sorts of complaints to the Jedi Council anyway.

For starters you'd need to know the persons name. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that really isn't that hard to get but you'd have to care enough to invest the time to find it out unless they were being especially forthcoming about it.

Then you'd have to track down their master. If they are a Padawan, chances are they weren't released from the academy without being under the instruction of a Master. If they don't have a Master then it is safe to assume they are no longer receiving instruction from the Jedi Academy.

If that is the case, what is the point in telling the Jedi Council what you found? I tend to lean more on the side of 'this is a Master/Padawan issue' vs 'Lawdy Lawdy, we gotz ta warn the council!' only because the one instance of this occurring involved two Masters seeking your aid and two masters ultimately deciding the course of action to take with their Padawan.

Assuming the player did have a Master, you spoke with their Master, and their Master pulled the 'big deal?' card, or the 'I instruct my Padawan's differently, thank you very much' card, then I could see needing to take this up with the Jedi Council.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Yuuj

casirabit · February 17, 2012

The problem is when one person thinks he is shall we say "roleplay police" over something he may or may not like a problem arises

The padawans I grant you may have been out of line, he roleplay he was going to report them and then when they didn't accept his authority he took it out of the roleplay and brought it here just to complain that they didn't accept his authority.

He roleplay he was going to repor tthem, when they started acting like they didn't care, then get up and walk away and remove yourself. YOu cannot force another person to take your authority if they don't want to

Complaining and wanting everyone to agree that how he wants things done, is also wrong. Everyone has a different way of roleplaying and if you don't like it then move on and leave them be

I know for me if someone walks up to me and starts roleplaying with me I ignore titles, names, levels, above their head. Don't expect just because you have the Master title above your head to have me accept that you are a Master. There are dozens of those running around in the game.

You going to have to roleplay and talk to me OOC first Don't even try to expect me to accept your authority over my character, considering I don't know who you are . You want me to respect your title than don't come across that your way is the only way it can be done.

I usually pretty easy going in my roleplay and open to suggestion but not when someone comes in like he is the "roleplay police". Do that and I can be just as stubborn as I am patient.

HiroAyami · February 18, 2012

Even if that was their reason for acting the way they did, how is their reaction wrong? Clearly, as seen by game mechanics, no one, not Padawan, Knight, or Master, can just call on the Council at any time. The Council does the contacting, not the individual Jedi.

Not true at all. Just because you didn't do it in game doesn't mean you can't submit a report to the council and that they won't look it over.

Whether or not you meet them in person is an entirely different subject. I agree with Yuuj though, to me it doesn't feel like a "Council fix this" so much as something their Master should be notified of and the matter left in their hands.

If their actions were based on, "I can do whatever I want IC because I don't give a damn IC or OOC and there isn't anything YOU can do about it trolololol," which is almost the impression I got as a passerby, I'm inclined to say they were wrong. Maybe not IC reaction wise, though I'd argue that as well, wherein I'm quite firmly against metagaming, but with regards to the topic: Verisimilitude: Roleplaying or just, "I do what I want!" they're not roleplaying, they're doing what they want.

Again, that's an if scenario, I wasn't directly involved and I just happened to witness the majority of the event in question. In any case, from myspecific account, if what those three Padawans were doing was considered "the norm" and in general "completely acceptable" for Lord Adraas, I would quickly nix the server from my list.

Edited February 18, 2012 by HiroAyami

Darth_Slaine · February 18, 2012

If their actions were based on, "I can do whatever I want IC because I don't give a damn IC or OOC and there isn't anything YOU can do about it trolololol," which is almost the impression I got as a passerby, I'm inclined to say they were wrong. Maybe not IC reaction wise, though I'd argue that as well, wherein I'm quite firmly against metagaming, but with regards to the topic: Verisimilitude: Roleplaying or just, "I do what I want!" they're not roleplaying, they're doing what they want.

When we don't know the intentions or motivations of another player it is generally better to give them the benefit of the doubt rather than making a thread using them as examples of "bad" RPers. If one cannot live without knowing what other players are thinking in a specific RP scenario it is more effective to ask them directly instead of making assumptions based on nothing concrete.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Darth_Slaine

AlyxDinas · February 18, 2012

Not true at all. Just because you didn't do it in game doesn't mean you can't submit a report to the council and that they won't look it over.

You either are not apprehending his point or willfully ignoring it. The point is that Master Vallius Starwynd can talk all he wants about reporting these people to the council. However, at the end of the day, there is no council for him to report to and he has no true, measurable authority of any kind. There are as substantial and existent as kettle steam. Walsh cannot (hypothetically now, mind you) leave for twenty minutes, come back, and then say "Well, I just talked to the Council and you guys are in troooooubbbbble!".

If their actions were based on, "I can do whatever I want IC because I don't give a damn IC or OOC and there isn't anything YOU can do about it trolololol,"...

If. While I do place a measure of trust upon your gut feelings as an observer (doubly so since I had a great time having our characters interact last evening), I cannot stress that single word enough.

\In any case, from myspecific account, if what those three Padawans were doing was considered "the norm" and in general "completely acceptable" for Lord Adraas, I would quickly nix the server from my list.

With due respect, this speaks more about yourself than the community. Roleplaying servers have no rules in terms of quality control. Hell, roleplaying is not even compulsory on roleplaying servers.

Edited February 18, 2012 by AlyxDinas

ProfessorWalsh · February 18, 2012

You either are not apprehending his point or willfully ignoring it. The point is that Master Vallius Starwynd can talk all he wants about reporting these people to the council. However, at the end of the day, there is no council for him to report to and he has no true, measurable authority of any kind. There are as substantial and existent as kettle steam. Walsh cannot (hypothetically now, mind you) leave for twenty minutes, come back, and then say "Well, I just talked to the Council and you guys are in troooooubbbbble!"

No, you are right, I can't do that. Nor did I try to do that.

HOWEVER...

As RP'ers they should ACT LIKE I COULD DO THAT regardless of being a Padawan, Knight, or Master because IN UNIVERSE any character, even non-Jedi, could report this theoretically and they COULD get in a lot of trouble.

By knowing it can't be done.

By acting like it can't be done.

THAT is the very definition of meta-gaming.

With due respect, this speaks more about yourself than the community. Roleplaying servers have no rules in terms of quality control. Hell, roleplaying is not even compulsory on roleplaying servers.

That doesn't mean we, the community, should not be expecting a certain level of conduct. The people in charge of the quality control are the players who observe what your character does. If they decide that they don't like it, they can ignore it, and it goes away. They can complain publicly about it and, hopefully, people will realize that certain behaviors aren't acceptable.

That is how social rules work.

Edited February 18, 2012 by ProfessorWalsh

Hardin_Steele · February 18, 2012

I'm on "The Ebon Hawk" server, which is an RP-PvE server. We have a pretty good crowd there, and there is some RP there, often in Fleet cantina, in a few other places, sometimes even including in Warzones. I have been pleasantly suprised when most of the group RPs wherever they are, as it does turn out to be contagious.....and when every around catches the bug, it is great fun.

It IS however, VERY annoying when plugheads like the Padawans you described start characters on an RP server with zero intention of RPing....or worse, if they were RPing, to roleplay in the manner they chose, since there is no possible RP enforcement except for the limited options available in the game world.

Still, interceding in obnoxious RP is appropriate, and I think the OP handled it really well.

Cheers to you! Keep up the good work! More RP everyone!

tehjai · February 18, 2012

Certainly. But this statement tends to be less romantic the moment we begin to utterly limit what they can and cannot do. For instance, say, a Jedi objecting to the tradition interpretation of the Code. Later on, you will call this a problem. But just because it is deemed a problem doesn't mean that it cannot or better yet, should not be, something that is available for the character to do.

People are not easily classified. We cannot simply just take person A with background B, place them in a situation, and determinalistically say we must always get result C. We can, perhaps, say what we might expect but expectations are not anything that must be met. If they were, roleplaying would be a fairly stagnant affair.

I apologize if that's what you take away from what I'm saying; I've interpreted this entire scenario as people getting upset that someone called them out for playing characters in a manner that strains credibility in the universe. I think that the original situation was mishandled, but the OP does bring up a good point about lore-compliance, which is something I take very seriously. All of what you said here is 100% correct.

A Jedi having issues with an interpretation of the Code is a problem within the Order. Therefore, when people playing Jedi straight-up object to seeing those issues demonstrated, that should be considered a normal, sensical consequence. A person is well within their rights to take an OOC issue with it and to bring up a discussion point about it on the forums, but everyone is well within their rights to roast that person over the coals for it. I think this issue or viewpoint may have been discussed under a better spirit were we not given this real-life (for lack of a better word) example.

Because at no point in the relevant example was a request made. This might seem like an immensely small detail but it holds the most weight of any. The OP, by his own admission, does not say "So I then politely contacted the players OOC and asked why they were behaving in such a way" or anything similar; he says that upon encountering a reaction he did not care for, he took extended pains to try to correct the players. To "corral" them with the help of other players.

Corral, incidentally, being a word synonymous with enclose, immure, cage, and control.

The OP ought to have made an inquiry. Definitely. But as for the corraling?

That's not necessarily OOC for these characters, if they're straight-up traditional Jedi. There seems to be an implicit expectation that the OP should have... played his character incorrectly simply to "make nice", or something.

It all comes back to control. Some of us want the limiter of playing within the setting; some of us want to be able to do whatever the hell we want. Control issues come up with both viewpoints, sadly. I just don't understand how

Edit: I left a thought unfinished here and I can't remember it. My bad.

We've long since established various reasons and motivations for their reactions. So much so that to say these things cannot be so would require you to take the time to provide reasoning. Until then, saying that someone should do a certain thing or behave a certain way is an empty statement.

So long as the IC interactions coming from these two acting in what is objectively a non-Jedi fashion are accepted and not just sloughed off as people being meanie poopooheads, I'm perfectly okay with it. Too often, though, these scenarios become just that: someone wants to break the lore wide open, people object both ICly and OOCly, and drama ensues because neither side wants to give an inch.

The OP ought to have inquired as to that before making this post -- he certainly did not appear to handle himself both ICly and OOCly with the best of grace -- but again, the idea of the importance of the setting to various RPers is an interesting thing to discuss.

Forgive me for not sharing in your assessment of the scenario (or which, I remind you, we only have the OP's account). It seems fairly clear to me that these Padawans didn't care. There is a plethora of reasons for why they might feel this way.

You've got me there. I just hope that the actual reasons -- of which we have zero knowledge about -- amount to more than "we want to do this and our characters are special".

Absolutely not. However, I would say that the greater onus tends to be on the people making claims which justify control. To explain the difference: let's say that two people are playing a card game together in a public park.

To me this analogy falls flat; when I see people who want to do things counter to the mores of the GFFA without reasoning -- and I admit that these Padawans may have had reasoning; you're right that the OP didn't make that clear nor did he take pains to investigate -- it's more like encountering people who show up to a euchre tournament and want to play crazy-eights. Sure, they'll have their own fun, and it's all a card game, but you end up having two groups with two wildly differing expectations.

Frankly, the notion that lore-compliant people should always be the ones to make concessions is an unfair one. If two persons, one anything-goes and one who's lore-compliant, want to play together, the anything-goes person ought to agree to a few rules and the lore-compliant person should be willing to loosen up a little bit.

Painting a desire to be lore-compliant in RP as being an overbearing and controlling individual is just as bad as interpreting someone who chooses to not be so as unintelligent or lazy, which you lambasted me for below.

Certainly. Conversely, as you take the time to point out the two way nature of things, play as you like but don't expect everyone to want to play with the same restraints. And when they do, don't delude yourself into thinking that you can force them to. Or that your way is inherently better.

I don't expect people to play the way I want. I have my preferences, but I'm also rather flexible and do believe in asking questions if something's happening that I don't quite understand. It's something the OP really should have done. Don't confuse "I like it when things are played this way" with "playing things this way is the only way". There's no self-delusion happening here, I assure you.

It's my preference. I think it's better. Someone else may think differently. Championing this "we must always make nice/anything goes" viewpoint the way it's been done here is just as zealous as those of us who think characters should abide by lore and work within the constraints of the universe.

Personally, I think we all ought to meet in the middle. Us lore-compliant people should take farfetched scenarios we feel might strain credibility with an OOC grain of salt; the anything-goes people should endeavour to understand that some people want some grounding in the universe for a concept.

You keep using the word problem without quantifying why it is an actual problem. Perhaps these players were entirely aware of the lore ramifications and wanted to play "poor" Padawans. Presuming that they only wanted to play as Jedi who could grope and kiss and screw without consequence is not anything we have to grant in the slightest.

What I have a problem with is this reaching and reaching and reaching to justify what is ostensibly poor behaviour for Jedi. ICly, that's the problem. Then that problem seems to blur the IC/OOC line: They're being poor Jedi, and when they're ICly called out on it, they go into what, as presented, looks like an OOC argument about it under IC pretenses, if only to defend how "special" they are that they can grope and kiss and screw -- that's a problem.

Again, this is my interpretation of what's presented, which I fully admit is one-sided. But scenarios like these (where people go against the grain and get incensed when ICly called out on behaviour not befitting of the setting) aren't really all that far-fetched in RP. I saw it in RO, I saw it in WoW, and here it is again in TOR.

Sure. Roleplay, as we've been saying, it something that requires reciprocation. Some people might decide that they don't want to reciprocate a certain type of roleplay. And that's they're choice. What they don't get to do is claim any level of moral outrage when their attempts to forcibly change how other players go about their business is rightly resisted.

Moral outrage? Saying "wow, that's bad RP" isn't exactly moral outrage. Don't conflate me with this Walsh fellow. I agree with the spirit of what he's said in his OP (I believe it was his, anyway): that it'd be nice to see more people have characters played realistically against the setting.

That said, though, I'd never forcibly attempt anything of the sort on people, unless you count me politely going, "I don't agree that Padawans should be getting away with this scot-free, so unless that's going to be explored more, I'm not really interested in the Make-Out show." as a forcible attempt, which I think is a real stretch. I'm being honest with a fellow RPer; if I don't like what they're doing, why should I play along until I can't stand it any more and leave someone in the lurch?

Any community can shun people. I'd question if that community knows the definition of "community", however. Better yet, let's not presume that just because these Padawans were roleplaying in a way that you might see as deficient that are not intelligent, observant people. Always presume the better. In that case, I'd say that it's likely that these players know of the potential consequences and, as was their right to, chose to prioritize their story and preferred mode of play over any arbitrary measure of social sanctions that might be tossed their way.

Yes, any community can shun people. And I'm not presuming that someone who plays a farfetched or unrealistic character is a terrible person. Simply because you interpret a criticism of RP as a criticism of someone's intelligence or integrity doesn't mean that's what I'm operating on. Some of my best friends in the universe are not the best RPers out there, and I point-blank refuse to long-term RP with them for varying reasons. My opinion of your RP doesn't have jack to do with my opinion of you as a person, and if my prior posts have made me seem like that kind of a person, I apologize for being misleading. I can't definitively say that that's where the other people who share my viewpoint are coming from -- I can only talk for me.

That's the worst thing I think that I'm seeing here. People are mixing up criticism with personal attack and cannot fathom that what's being criticised is the work, not its creator. Conversely, people making the criticisms can't seem to separate the two, either.

In short, these are two wildly differing viewpoints, the adherents of which will defend the pros of each voraciously. So long as the lore-compliant people don't loosen up and assume the worst of others and the anything-goes people interpret any rule as a massive infringement on their freedom, this discussion will continue ad nauseum.

I love lore compliance. It's my preferred way to play. I don't want to be OOCly demonized for that just like you or others don't want to be OOCly demonized for wanting to stretch or break that lore.

Do I still think what the OP posted was bad RP? I do, but that's my subjective opinion (and were I in the OP's shoes, I'd have said my peace so as to maintain my character's integrity and then hightailed it away from there. The OP didn't need to go "corralling"; a stern finger-wagging and sigh of exasperation would have sufficed).

I think in the end, while everyone has their preference as to how they want to play, both sides should be understood and everyone should be willing to give and take to make a good RP experience for people.

Alternatively, we could just group together with the likeminded, but that has a very real chance of getting very boring very fast.

Edited February 18, 2012 by tehjai

Explosive_Lasers · February 18, 2012

Just because we can't actually report to the Council doesn't mean they should get off completely free for breaking the Code, having romantic relationships, insulting the Council, insulting two masters and a knight, and making the Jedi look bad IN PUBLIC.

That is, excuse my English, *********** stupid.

If that's the case, I can shoot every single RPer on my server, because they can't report me to security, and I get no consequences. I can pickpocket everybody, because they can't report me. I could play a Jedi that lightnings orphans and blows up churches, and they couldn't do anything to stop me.

Just because the game doesn't let us go to the Council, doesn't mean we can't take their recorded actions and use them. I believe EVERY case of romance in the Jedi, that isn't permitted by the Council, has wound up in severe punishment, and even exile.

So, it's safe to assume that several different punishments could occur. Just because we can't actually talk to the Council doesn't make what the Padawans did inexcusable.

They thought it did, so that DEFINITELY breaks immersion. Even a Padawan that has the intellect of a sack of hammers would know the Council could boot their rebellious *** into space for breaking the Code. They wouldn't say otherwise, especially not to a Jedi Master.

AlyxDinas · February 18, 2012

No, you are right, I can't do that. Nor did I try to do that.

Are you going to spend time impotently defending yourself against an admittedly hypothetical situation or are you going to take the time to actually address questions posed to you?

That doesn't mean we, the community, should be expect a certain level of conduct.

I'll assume you mean "shouldn't expect a certain level of conduct". After which, I'll assume that you're capable of understanding that the concept of conduct extents, necessarily, beyond what happens IC. And politely qualify that an expectation is not the same thing as a desire or even an overwhelming need. When an expectation is broken, particularly one that the 'guilty' party might not be aware of to begin with, there is a way to graciously deal with it and a way not to.

I'll give you a hint: this thread is much more in line with the latter.

The people in charge of the quality control are the players who observe what your character does.

Then we've decided that consensus is, to a degree, reality in this situation. If that is the case, and you still maintain this then what I posed to you on page still applies and my question there applies in full. If you disdain cabals and "cartels" why do you support and "control" quality using the same tactics that you apparently despise? When did you become exempt from the apparent behavioral standards you wish to see other's adhere to?

If they decide that they don't like it, they can ignore it, and it goes away.

I'm confused. You advocate their approach yet once again it is something you cannot do yourself. First, you cannot simply disconnect from whatever preconceived notions you have about the setting enough to let other players be, then you and a cadre of other players see fit to interject and (to steal you word again) "corral" the individuals in question out of some misplaced sense of self-righteousness in which you decide it is your job to police a section of the community, when this is not efficient you profess to supposedly backing away and using the golden fixit that is /ignore, and yet because you are still not satisfied nor do you feel vindicated (presumably because the other players had the gall to not dance like the little marionettes you wanted them too) you take the time to vent further in a public setting about this...and then can't cop to the fact that plenty of people aren't content to sit back and pat you on the head like you want them to?

It doesn't sound like ignoring the issue much to me, honestly. It sounds like Indiana can't let that Holy Grail go..

They can complain publicly about it and, hopefully, people will realize that certain behaviors aren't acceptable.

Again we keep reverting to terms for which we've still offered no true baseline quantification. Standards flutuate. Dictating what is acceptable and what is not tends to be a painfully vapid excersize. At least in the context we are discussing it. And since we've still to hear any true extended counter argument to the claim that the character's reactions were realistically possible within the setting (in contrast to your insistence that they neigh impossible), we still have little more than your mulish repetition that your claim was, in fact, correct.

Edited February 18, 2012 by AlyxDinas

Yuuj · February 18, 2012

Just because we can't actually report to the Council doesn't mean they should get off completely free for breaking the Code, having romantic relationships, insulting the Council, insulting two masters and a knight, and making the Jedi look bad IN PUBLIC.

That is, excuse my English, *********** stupid.

Here in lies the problem. You wouldn't go straight to the Council with this, you would go through the character's Master. The fact that everyone is so willing to circumvent an actual player to rush to a soulless body because they are 100% sure that they would expel the person is a problem.

If that's the case, I can shoot every single RPer on my server, because they can't report me to security, and I get no consequences. I can pickpocket everybody, because they can't report me. I could play a Jedi that lightnings orphans and blows up churches, and they couldn't do anything to stop me.

This is awfully dramatic. We're talking about a Padawan telling a 'prude' Jedi Master to buzz off, we're not talking about a rampage.

Just because the game doesn't let us go to the Council, doesn't mean we can't take their recorded actions and use them. I believe EVERY case of romance in the Jedi, that isn't permitted by the Council, has wound up in severe punishment, and even exile.

Nope. Since you made that claim though, go ahead and provide the proof.

So, it's safe to assume that several different punishments could occur. Just because we can't actually talk to the Council doesn't make what the Padawans did inexcusable.

Agreed, but the punishment is going to have to be more creative than...

Listen to me or else!

Fine, you didn't listen so now I have to take matters into my own hands.

I go to the Jedi Council and tattle.

They expel/exile you.

They thought it did, so that DEFINITELY breaks immersion. Even a Padawan that has the intellect of a sack of hammers would know the Council could boot their rebellious *** into space for breaking the Code. They wouldn't say otherwise, especially not to a Jedi Master.

Eh, you're just going back to making assumptions now.

Darth_Slaine · February 18, 2012

As RP'ers they should ACT LIKE I COULD DO THAT regardless of being a Padawan, Knight, or Master because IN UNIVERSE any character, even non-Jedi, could report this theoretically and they COULD get in a lot of trouble.

Good. You have returned to your original argument. We have already been over why this statement is false, but I will repost most of it again in a moment -- first though, let me try a new tack...

You say:

The Jedi Council has rules that Padawans will be punished for breaking.

You saw Padawans breaking the rules in a Cantina.

Padawans, when breaking these rules, should act as if they are afraid of punishment.

Because the Padawans were not afraid when breaking the rules they acted unrealistically.

Now, consider this:

Our society has rules against murder and mayhem with substantial penalites including, in some areas, execution.

People are known to frequently break these rules in bars or public spaces (I can link last week's attack on bar by man with chainsaw).

The people committing these acts do not seem to be in fear of anything when they go on their rampages.

Because some people show no fear of the law when breaking it then reality is not realistic.

Next, let us look at possible reasons why they did not need to react in fear when confronted by your IC overture -- this has been previously posted, but you slept through it...

10 Reasons the Padawans Might Have Realistically Ignored Your Advice

They didn't see you as very impressive
They might have been drunk
You might not have had their real names and information (names above the head don't count)
They figured what happens at the Fleet stays at the Fleet
They might be very young and foolish
They may have left or been planning on leaving the Order
They may have heretical Masters
They may have been pretending to act this way for a higher purpose
They may have thought it would be a long time before you reported it
They may not have believed you were a Jedi

Is there anyone here that has not, on some occasion, acted like a complete tosspot for one of the above reasons? Any one of these explanations could work in TOR. The behavior the characters exhibited is not that surprising and is not unrealistic. The players are not obliged to share their characters' motivations with you so that you can judge whether you think it works in Star Wars.

And it was further developed here...

Now, that is all beside the point. The thread is about whether a specific RP interaction counted as a crime against verisimilitude. This specific interaction is not the entire scene but only one part of it.

The OP's argument is that Padawans, when confronted by anyone over improper behavior, would never react by dismissing the confronter -- the dismissal is what is being considered unrealistic.

The realism of Padawans behaving badly is not under question. There are several canon examples of Padawans not behaving like Jedi therefore it is a realistic mode of behavior for the setting. The OP has provided examples that support this.

Sadly, we only have one episode of in-game canon that lets us see the reactions of Padawans confronted for engaging in romantic behavior. In that episode the reactions are a missed bag. Both Padawans react strongly and differently but both seem to view the confronter as a threat.

We have a two-part problem here. First, it is impossible to predict the behavior of all people based on one sample. Second, the situation between the case of the Tython Padawans and the Fleet Padawns are different in key ways that change the power-dynamic.

On Tython you have been sent by the Padawans' Masters and you know who the Padawans are and have information about them. This means that you already have some power over them. In the Cantina the OP encountered random Padawans that he knew nothing about (some say he couldn't realistically tell they were Padawans at all) -- that means even if he wanted to report them, how we he do so? Which criminal is more likely to fear an APB -- the one whose name is given or the one who is unknown but for a composite sketch?
Additionally, the in-game episode took place on Tython, the center of Jedi power while the second incident took place off-planet in a bar. Distance and context make behavior that would be unthinkable on Tython acceptable -- just ask any college freshman living in a dorm for the first time.

To return to the only argument of the OP: the reaction of the Padawans when confronted was unrealistic because it was not the same reaction exhibited by two Padawans in canon.

Now, beyond the fact that it would be unrealistic in a setting if everyone reacted the exact same way, it is clear that the thesis here cannot be supported because there are factors in the second situation that were absent in the first that make a different reaction not only possible but desirable.

Consider...
If you are told "you're caught" and you say "Okay, it's a fair cop" you are bound to be punished, while if you run, resist or plead your innocence there is at least a slim chance you will escape. Now, you may submit hoping for mercy but it is just as realistic and perhaps preferable to avoid being sanctioned at all.

The attack on verisimilitude described in the OP, and further clarified by its author, is solely about the realism of the reaction -- dismissal. Everything else observed is supported by canon.

Several people have shown that the dismissal-reaction is fairly natural and would be considered realistic in a Star Wars setting -- how many quests offer your character the chance to dismiss a higher-ranking figure by directly refusing? I was pleasantly surprised to see I could even rudely dismiss my Sith superiors in my choices.

So you see, there is a logical basis for dismissing the confronter and it fits with behaviors observed in the setting, therefore the reaction is not unrealistic and verisimilitude is preserved.

TL;DR: over the course of the thread the argument that anything unrealistic happened has been whittled down and refuted by several posters

Forgive me, OP, but your rhetorical style seems to be to respond to an argument by disappearing for a few pages and hoping that everyone forgets before reposting the same inaccurate statement that you began with.

You have not shown why people would react in fear when caught doing something bad beyond saying that there is a penalty. In every day life we see people doing bad things and gloating when they are caught in spite of the penalties.

Realism suggests that there exists a variety of potential reactions that will be determined by personality, power dynamic and environment.

The actions of the Padawans were within the "real" and therefore did not violate verisimilitude.

I will see you in three pages, I suspect.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Darth_Slaine

AlyxDinas · February 18, 2012

I think that the original situation was mishandled, but the OP does bring up a good point about lore-compliance, which is something I take very seriously.

As do I. I simply take great pains to understand that my pleasure is not the only means of pleasure for others. I love homemade pie. That does not mean that when I see someone eating cake, I shove a pie in their face.

(Note: I'm not saying you do either. I don't *know* you.)

A Jedi having issues with an interpretation of the Code is a problem within the Order. Therefore, when people playing Jedi straight-up object to seeing those issues demonstrated, that should be considered a normal, sensical consequence.

Quite so. But I'd suggest it be used as an opportunity beyond an occasion to simply shout down whoever it is who might be the dissenting voice. Interaction builds. It seeks to engage and draw in all parties. What it doesn't seek, and I take a risk here by making what I feel to be a statement of fact, is to push one party aside. As occurred in the pertinent situation being discussed.

But as for the corraling?

That's not necessarily OOC for these characters, if they're straight-up traditional Jedi.

If we are going to start appeal to IC motivation to largely excuse an act which was highly motivated by an OOC (read: emotional) response to what they observed, I'm afraid we have a very long road ahead of us. For instance, there is a difference between having a character be imperious and commanding and actually using that fact as an excuse to be imperious and commanding in a way that extends beyond the IC realm.

There seems to be an implicit expectation that the OP should have... played his character incorrectly simply to "make nice", or something.

You're wrong. The explicit statement is that the OP should not confuse his personal biases and preferences with anything resembling strict server rules which he has any authority to enforce nor should he conflate another player's decision to reserve their right to refuse his overtures as anything other than a perfectly acceptable choice on their part.

As a side note, let's stray away from terms like "correctly" or incorrectly", shall we?

It all comes back to control. Some of us want the limiter of playing within the setting; some of us want to be able to do whatever the hell we want.

In such cases, I always presume a greater responsibility on the individual who claims a right to impose control. Mostly because they are imbuing themselves with some degree of authority over others. Such a thing is not assumed, however. It is given. And in times where it seems it will not be given, I would say the better thing is to graciously bow out with some modicum of dignity.

The OP ought to have inquired as to that before making this post -- he certainly did not appear to handle himself both ICly and OOCly with the best of grace -- but again, the idea of the importance of the setting to various RPers is an interesting thing to discuss.

I don't think there's anyone in this thread to whom the setting is not important. I tend, however, to place more value on individual people than vague ideas.

You've got me there. I just hope that the actual reasons -- of which we have zero knowledge about -- amount to more than "we want to do this and our characters are special".

We will never know and, such as it is, it is probably far more beneficial to assume the better of someone than not.

To me this analogy falls flat; when I see people who want to do things counter to the mores of the GFFA without reasoning -- and I admit that these Padawans may have had reasoning; you're right that the OP didn't make that clear nor did he take pains to investigate -- it's more like encountering people who show up to a euchre tournament and want to play crazy-eights.

There is actually a clear difference.Tournaments are sanctioned events in which participants agree to adhere to an enforce ruleset or face penalty. This is in no way comparable to a computer server. Particularly a roleplaying server upon which there are no formal rules. When one agrees to the EULA upon booting up, they do not agree to a subset of RP server rules the same way as someone signing a participation waiver for a tournament agrees to actual rules.

Frankly, the notion that lore-compliant people should always be the ones to make concessions is an unfair one.

I'd urge you not to make general statements as to my or other poster's complete thoughts on such things based on our judgement of how one player, in our estimation, screwed the pooch. The above statement is not in anyway in line with my own general beliefs on the matter, that's for sure.

In fact, when I've previously spoken about "engaging" people with the lore, I am largely speaking of a state of affairs when those unfamiliar with it or less concerned with it start to become the greater concession granting party. I'd just rather cultivate a genuine interest in the material on their part.

If two persons, one anything-goes and one who's lore-compliant, want to play together, the anything-goes person ought to agree to a few rules and the lore-compliant person should be willing to loosen up a little bit.

We're starting to divide people into parties and factions again. I'd caution against this. Mostly because, as you will see below, you start to do so in a way which actually starts to place people into the camp you think they belong in rather than what they actually are.

Painting a desire to be lore-compliant in RP as being an overbearing and controlling individual is just as bad as interpreting someone who chooses to not be so as unintelligent or lazy, which you lambasted me for below.

Thankfully, I am referring to a specific individual and instance.

I don't expect people to play the way I want. I have my preferences, but I'm also rather flexible and do believe in asking questions if something's happening that I don't quite understand. It's something the OP really should have done.

Don't confuse "I like it when things are played this way" with "playing things this way is the only way".

I believe I've only approached something resembling the latter in regards to my feelings about the OP's positions. Then again, he has made some definite claims not only about what people should or should not do but also what they can and can't do. The last part of that sentence is the important one.

There's no self-delusion happening here, I assure you.

On your part? Certainly not.

Championing this "we must always make nice/anything goes" viewpoint the way it's been done here is just as zealous as those of us who think characters should abide by lore and work within the constraints of the universe.

It might be possible that you misconstrued a large portion of many people's meaning then.

Personally, I think we all ought to meet in the middle.

Then you share my opinion.

What I have a problem with is this reaching and reaching and reaching to justify what is ostensibly poor behaviour for Jedi. ICly, that's the problem.

The issue arose only because of the OP's claim that there is absolutely no justification. When one makes statements of fact, they need to defend them. When one says something is impossible, they must be able to say without a shadow of a reasonable doubt how this is so.

Then that problem seems to blur the IC/OOC line: They're being poor Jedi, and when they're ICly called out on it, they go into what, as presented, looks like an OOC argument about it under IC pretenses, if only to defend how "special" they are that they can grope and kiss and screw -- that's a problem.

Is this what they did? We're making more presumptions here. And judging the situation simply from the OP's somewhat personal colored account is probably not the wisest course of action either.

Moral outrage? Saying "wow, that's bad RP" isn't exactly moral outrage. Don't conflate me with this Walsh fellow.

Contextually, that comment was directed towards that "Walsh fellow" and his reaction. Perhaps my phrasing was unclear but I thought you'd have picked up on. Don't assume that I'm always talking about you even if I am talking to you. I like you.

I agree with the spirit of what he's said in his OP (I believe it was his, anyway): that it'd be nice to see more people have characters played realistically against the setting.

Define "realistic for the setting".

That said, though, I'd never forcibly attempt anything of the sort on people, unless you count me politely going, "I don't agree that Padawans should be getting away with this scot-free, so unless that's going to be explored more, I'm not really interested in the Make-Out show." as a forcible attempt, which I think is a real stretch.

Second verse is same as the first. Please do not make the incorrect assumption that when I am talking about the behavior of the OP in the course of my discussion with you, I am transferring that action to you.

Yes, any community can shun people. And I'm not presuming that someone who plays a farfetched or unrealistic character is a terrible person. Simply because you interpret a criticism of RP as a criticism of someone's intelligence or integrity doesn't mean that's what I'm operating on.

Third verse, same as the second. Move away from the "magical me" for a moment, yes?

I love lore compliance. It's my preferred way to play. I don't want to be OOCly demonized for that just like you or others don't want to be OOCly demonized for wanting to stretch or break that lore.

Incidentally, I take great pains to maintain my own sense of verisimilitude when roleplaying. Sort of tosses a wrench into that last bit of yours, doesn't it? Just because I enjoy to add some new colors to the canvas every now and then doesn't mean I'm suddenly Jackson Pollock.

The OP didn't need to go "corralling"; a stern finger-wagging and sigh of exasperation would have sufficed.

Beyond sufficient. Ideal.

I think in the end, while everyone has their preference as to how they want to play, both sides should be understood and everyone should be willing to give and take to make a good RP experience for people.

This is my preference.

Edited February 18, 2012 by AlyxDinas

Sylriana · February 18, 2012

No, you are right, I can't do that. Nor did I try to do that.

HOWEVER...

As RP'ers they should ACT LIKE I COULD DO THAT regardless of being a Padawan, Knight, or Master because IN UNIVERSE any character, even non-Jedi, could report this theoretically and they COULD get in a lot of trouble.

By knowing it can't be done.
By acting like it can't be done.

THAT is the very definition of meta-gaming.

Why is the immediate assumption that their characters didn't conform to your expectations because the players were willfully ignoring lore ( based on the nature of game mechanics ) rather than that that was simply how their characters acted? Granted, you very well may be right here that they were just twits. But from the way you described how things went, you never actually attempted to engage them OOC over the matter, you just got pissed that they weren't acting the way you wanted them to RP.

That's what I think is the fundamental problem here, this idea that a character not acting in a manner that conforms with your expectations is engendering a hostile reaction even out of character. There should be a degree of separation between IC and OOC.

I just don't understand this immediate leap from "A character isn't acting the way I'd act if I were playing a similar character" to "The players don't know how to rp / don't know the lore / powergame".

Explosive_Lasers · February 18, 2012

Here in lies the problem. You wouldn't go straight to the Council with this, you would go through the character's Master. The fact that everyone is so willing to circumvent an actual player to rush to a soulless body because they are 100% sure that they would expel the person is a problem.

Well, assuming their masters are actual players, by all means talk to them first.

I never said otherwise. The Padawans implied that NOTHING could be done to them, so that's a different story. They could actually receive punishment in the case of an actual player being a Master, but if that player doesn't care about the relationship, you take it to the Council.

This is awfully dramatic. We're talking about a Padawan telling a 'prude' Jedi Master to buzz off, we're not talking about a rampage.

I was making a point regarding the lack of any punishment I could receive, because of game limitations. I know it's entirely different, but it gets the point across.

If there's no punishment for breaking certain established rules, why discriminate? I believe people said 'all or none' earlier, regarding mechanics or the like. So, if they can't receive punishment because we can't tattle on the Council, why do I receive punishment for killing fifteen people. We don't KNOW how the courts and the police would react. Hell, I could say I was given leave to, and you guys are all being goody-two-shoes.

I'd effectively be the Padawans, and I could hide behind almost every defense everybody has displayed here.

Nope. Since you made that claim though, go ahead and provide the proof.

Well, since we can see that the Padawans on Tython are willing to MURDER you to keep their secret safe...

Agreed, but the punishment is going to have to be more creative than...

Listen to me or else!
Fine, you didn't listen so now I have to take matters into my own hands.
I go to the Jedi Council and tattle.
They expel/exile you.

I agree. I was thinking more along the lines of "No more seeing each other, at all." for the romance itself. It might be harsher for the rebellion, disobedience, and insults to the Jedi. If the Padawans don't recognize that they do get in trouble, and can get exiled for it (not saying this would be the punishment), and you do RP going to the Council about it, they're doing something wrong. Being rebellious is one thing, but avoiding consequences that are entirely realistic to the scenario is different. One is excusable by personality, the other is not.

Eh, you're just going back to making assumptions now.

If confronted by three ranking officers over breaking the rules in public, right in front of them, after they asked you to stop, I doubt there would be anybody stupid enough to insult the officers, and then go on to claim immunity to punishment.

Especially not a Jedi, talking to other Jedi. Even if they were other Padawans, it would be ridiculous to act that way.

Call it an assumption, but I'm calling ******** on that reaction.

ProfessorWalsh · February 18, 2012

They didn't see you as very impressive
They might have been drunk
You might not have had their real names and information (names above the head don't count)
They figured what happens at the Fleet stays at the Fleet
They might be very young and foolish
They may have left or been planning on leaving the Order
They may have heretical Masters
They may have been pretending to act this way for a higher purpose
They may have thought it would be a long time before you reported it
They may not have believed you were a Jedi

I am about to debunk each and every one of these.

They didn't see you as very impressive

It doesn't matter.

They might have been drunk

That doesn't excuse their actions.

You might not have had their real names and information (names above the head don't count)

Doesn't matter. Any Jedi would be able to describe someone else well enough and/or use the temple's holo records to look them up.

They figured what happens at the Fleet stays at the Fleet

No Jedi would figure that.

They might be very young and foolish

That doesn't excuse anything. Jedi Padawans are Jedi who already passed the initiate trials, they are full members of the Jedi Order, they can't really make it that far and be that foolish.

They may have left or been planning on leaving the Order

This is quite possibly the only thing you have said in this that might justify anything. Though I know for a fact that wasn't the case.

They may have heretical Masters

Doesn't matter. The master cannot protect them from the Council and yes, the master can be circumvented. If a Jedi Master is found to be that heretical the Padawans would be yanked from them.

They may have been pretending to act this way for a higher purpose

That is reaching.

They may have thought it would be a long time before you reported it

That makes no sense.

They may not have believed you were a Jedi

That makes less sense. A person openly dressed as a Jedi, on a Republic station, backed up by other people who look like Jedi, who absolutely are Force Sensitive, and who are carrying lightsabers is obviously a Jedi.

Darth_Slaine · February 18, 2012

I am about to debunk each and every one of these.

They didn't see you as very impressive

It doesn't matter.

They might have been drunk

That doesn't excuse their actions.

You might not have had their real names and information (names above the head don't count)

Doesn't matter. Any Jedi would be able to describe someone else well enough and/or use the temple's holo records to look them up.

They figured what happens at the Fleet stays at the Fleet

No Jedi would figure that.

They might be very young and foolish

That doesn't excuse anything. Jedi Padawans are Jedi who already passed the initiate trials, they are full members of the Jedi Order, they can't really make it that far and be that foolish.

They may have left or been planning on leaving the Order

This is quite possibly the only thing you have said in this that might justify anything. Though I know for a fact that wasn't the case.

They may have heretical Masters

Doesn't matter. The master cannot protect them from the Council and yes, the master can be circumvented. If a Jedi Master is found to be that heretical the Padawans would be yanked from them.

They may have been pretending to act this way for a higher purpose

That is reaching.

They may have thought it would be a long time before you reported it

That makes no sense.

They may not have believed you were a Jedi

That makes less sense. A person openly dressed as a Jedi, on a Republic station, backed up by other people who look like Jedi, who absolutely are Force Sensitive, and who are carrying lightsabers is obviously a Jedi.

Again, you seem confused. No one is arguing that the Council would not punish such behavior.

You need to show that the only possible reaction to a threat of being exposed is fear and compliance.

The reasons I gave are reasons they may have ignored you, not excuses for why they would not be punished. I will wait while you go back and address the actual issue.

Edited February 18, 2012 by Darth_Slaine

AlyxDinas · February 18, 2012

I am about to debunk each and every one of these.

You misunderstand and, beyond that, have failed at your proposed "debunking". He's not looking for judgement of their motivations or their actions. Slaine isn't offering an excuse for their apparent insubordination, he's offering an explanation for how they can realistically have an action other than the one action you say they must have. Those are not even close to being the same thing.

You offered a statement: the behavior was unrealistic and it could not be explained reasonably within the context of the setting. He has offered ways in which they could. All you have done is offer ways in which they do not, in your mind, excuse the breach of etiquette. You have not provided any credible statement as to how any of Slaine's explanations fail to account for how the action in question could have realistically occurred to begin with.

To debunk something doesn't mean to go "Nope. Nope. No way. Nah.", it means to offer a well formed and intellectually honest response which actually addresses the matter at hand. Until you do so, Slaine's objections stand completely uncontested in any meaningful manner.

Edited February 18, 2012 by AlyxDinas

MrDeas · February 18, 2012

I dunno about that. I'm playing the sith warrior offical storyline for the game and I get a "disrespect your superior" option every single convo. I imagine dark side Trooper options are the same way.

As for the ERP'ing padawans. Dark side Jedi is an option in the game and ERP'ing and cussing would seem like appropriate "gateway' shenanigans for the actual murdering that a dark side Jedi gets to do in their storyline.

The teenagers are drunk with their power of becominga jedi and are embracing the dark side in an openly childish rebeliious way. Sounds exactly up the alley of what this game is supposed to be about, "which side do you choose"

This is true and that was my first thought. But they do have a ship which they can use collectively if they want to do some ERP.

My thoughts are that this was just RP (although I wasn't there). Sure the OP didn't like it, but then would any Master have liked it? They played their characters and you played yours. They happened to be incompatible.

I wouldn't mind this at all. It wasn't mentioned but I would have whispered to them whether what they were RPing just to check. From the OP it doesn't seem there was any communication between them.

HiroAyami · February 18, 2012

You either are not apprehending his point or willfully ignoring it. The point is that Master Vallius Starwynd can talk all he wants about reporting these people to the council. However, at the end of the day, there is no council for him to report to and he has no true, measurable authority of any kind. There are as substantial and existent as kettle steam. Walsh cannot (hypothetically now, mind you) leave for twenty minutes, come back, and then say "Well, I just talked to the Council and you guys are in troooooubbbbble!".

If that was the point then it was probably irrelevant since I had assumed from our prior posts that we both had a solid grasp of limitations in IC. I took this to mean that based on how things go in Jedi Knight and Jedi Counsular Class Quests we've established that Jedi are summoned by the Council, they don't get to make requests, submit reports, so from a lore aspect Jedi don't interact with the council unless summoned.

If. While I do place a measure of trust upon your gut feelings as an observer (doubly so since I had a great time having our characters interact last evening), I cannot stress that single word enough.

That being said, I am all for the benefit of the doubt which I can respect, but there are times where you simply pass judgement based on how things went. It may not be right, it may not be fair, but you do. I trust my judgment, experience in similar situations, and feelings (lol) in that situation well enough to have gotten to my next point:

With due respect, this speaks more about yourself than the community. Roleplaying servers have no rules in terms of quality control. Hell, roleplaying is not even compulsory on roleplaying servers.

I was indeed speaking of myself more than the community because I only have my perspective as an observer to the situations. I felt they were doing what they wanted irregardless of how it affected others, and I made judgements about them immediately after observing further. The right or wrong aspect is entirely debatable, I wouldn't really care to discuss the right or wrongs there, it's what I do, and at the very least I am aware of it and try not to when and if I can.

I ignored them on my side, but I'm not going to go around and destroy their good names or boycott them from roleplaying ever or on Lord Adraas, however I did not feel any roleplay had to occur between us, ever.

Now, just breaking this down a bit more: "In any case, from my specific account, if what those three Padawans were doing (something I could understand as completely acceptable IC, but wildly off base with how I comport myself, and in dealing with them IC in the future being all but guaranteed an unpleasant interaction) was considered "the norm" and in general "completely acceptable" (everyone did this, people did what they wanted without any consideration for anyone they interact with) for Lord Adraas, I would quickly nix the server from my list (because due to personal preference that is not the atmosphere I would enjoy so rather than go against that grain I removed myself from the equation and moved on because I am fully aware not all servers are the same, thankfully Lord A has been and continues to be enjoyable to me).

Effectively I gathered:

- IC, I would have a difficult time interacting with them due to my caring about base lores and building that character around them.

- I could not see myself enjoying interactions with them on even a fundamental level, their roleplay, from my perspective looked one sided. Sort of all "Take" rather than "give and Take" so to speak.

- Rather than dealing with a near guaranteed experience I would only deem frustrating, I decided not to interact with them then or decidedly in the future. No one would benefit so why even keep it open for chance?

- I have seen similar situations throughout my time as an RPer and MMO gamer, their style did not appeal to me and I had a sour first impression. Sort of like a drunk you meet while clubbing or at a bar, you mark them, and while they may be playing things up or a completely nice person while not drunk, you avoid them, isolate interactions, or at times just up and leave.

Edited February 18, 2012 by HiroAyami

tehjai · February 18, 2012

Snippity Snip

With respect to "magical me", Alyx, when you quote me and discuss what I'm saying, you should not be surprised if I interpret what's being said as being directed at me. That was a bit jarring to read, but let's move on.

I am enjoying the back-and-forth we're having, and it's rather interesting to see that despite butting heads on issues of details and implementation and appearing to be quite divided over the issue, we feel the same way about the spirit of this thread. The OP's behaviour was improper and I'm not even sure that this thread should have been created at all, at least not with the specifics presented the way they are. But you know that.

I am going to take this opportunity to define -- in general terms -- something you asked me to in your previous post. I apologize in advance because this will get wordy and I'm trying to speak as clear as I can. The tone of it goes academic, it's not meant to belittle anyone or anything like that.:

You asked me to define what is "realistic for the setting". From here on out, I'm speaking generally for all thread readers, and not just to Alyx, so pay attention to this part:

My preference for playing realistically to the setting sounds super complex, but in practise it's really not that hard to grasp, I'm just wordy as all hell when it comes to dissecting RP as a craft (I could write about writing all day). It basically stems from the idea that TOR operates under a Fixed Setting where some aspects of the universe are to be construed as non-interpretable facts, and to be realistic within the Fixed Setting, using the Facts as guidelines.

The Idea of Fixed Setting

In an MMO, we (the players) operate under something I'll call a fixed universe, just for the sake of brevity. By "fixed universe" I mean that there is a pre-existing way that things are done. This fixed universe is the sandbox where characters live. All characters, arguably, are beholden to the fixed universe. We are not necessarily playing in our idealized version of the GFFA; we're playing in the GFFA that BioWare has given us. We see it given to us in questing and in flashpoints; the Republic and Empire are well-crafted social orders with their own laws and rules, and there are many parts of these that are not subjective and not open to interpretation.

I will list some examples below; I am not intending them to be exhaustive or exclusive.

Republic: The Jedi Order is an ascetic, ranked group of Force-sensitive individuals who eschew personal attachment in order to serve the Republic. Racism against non-humans in the Republic is not officially sanctioned. Slavery is not officially sanctioned. There is corruption in the Senate.

Empire: The Sith Order are a ranked group of Force-sensitive individuals who seek to gain power and control, usually by whatever means necessary. Racism against non-humans is not only state-sanctioned, but encouraged at times amongst the populace. The Empire swims in slaves. On the outside the Empire seems to be a definitive machine, but there are power struggles going on.

All of these things are objectively demonstrated in questing, if not told to a character outright at some point in the levelling experience. We can consider these as "facts" for the purpose of this definition. I hesitate to say "rules", so I will term them as "facts" for this discussion.

(Aside: The veracity of these facts; that is, to what extent and how well they are displayed is always up for debate, but I really don't think the examples I gave are too off-base. Let me know if I've really screwed up a detail, though, especially with Republic, as my experience with that side has been mostly through reading about class stories and watching videos -- no firsthand experience.)

Realism Within The Setting

When I say that I want to see a character that is realistic for the setting, I'm saying this: I want to see a character who aligns with the above facts about their specific factions, or a character who is played such that at least the player is aware of where they (the character) stand amongst these facts.

Playing realistically within the setting does not 'ban' certain concepts; it just means that certain concepts must be considered a little more carefully against the backdrop of the game world. If a character plays in a manner that doesn't line up with the facts -- and really, all of them do to some extent -- to be realistic within the setting means that they would ideally understand that their view differs from the norm, and that where their views and philosophy go against the facts, conflict will be implied if not outright experienced in RP. This works on both an IC and OOC level. A character may have been born and raised in a viewpoint that is counter to the facts (or they may just not be self-reflective enough to notice that their viewpoint doesn't match the world's, or they simply may give no f*cks); but a player should strive to understand on the OOC level that the concept is such, and that it may invite conflict.

At its basest level, conflict drives the RP machine. Conflict drives SWTOR as a game to be played and as a universe for us to play in. Conflicts that might arise from a character not aligning with the facts of his or her faction ought to be at the very least expected, if not outright welcomed and encouraged. This does not mean that a player has to engage all conflict, but depending on the concept, they may encounter a lot of it. Characters playing true to all the facts will likewise encounter characters that don't, and those players should likewise expect similar conflicts.

So I'll try to illustrate what I mean by all that. I'm going to keep it simple because there are enough words words words in this post already.

(Aside: In my experience, characters who do not align with the settings tend to be Jedi or Sith. Thus, I'll use those as examples here -- again, this is not meant to imply that non-Force-using characters have free reign, it is simply to illustrate my point.)

If, for whatever reason, we see a personally-attached Jedi or a let's-hug-it-out-Sith, these aforementioned facts (which are objective, they have been demonstrated to us in the overall game story, remember) can lead to a set of logical, assumed, eventual consequences.

The consequences can take the form of IC reactions, and generally speaking they most often do. Even if they're not actually played out, they certainly ought to be considered.

Logical because often, we know what the general result of the against-type behaviour will be: a personally-attached Jedi directly opposes the in-universe notion of what Jedi are; a let's-hug-it-out Sith likewise opposes the in-universe notion of what Sith are. It is fundamental, and, when viewed through the lens of the facts -- it's also objective and logical. In the context of playing within the setting, these are usually what people play out -- the differences of opinion, the pulling of rank and authority, things like that.

Assumed because, unfortunately, the ruling bodies of both the Jedi and Sith aren't played by anyone; however, in-universe where Jedi and Sith are concerned there are very real and tangible consequences for members of the respective orders who don't play ball, running the gamut from punishment and separation, loss of rank or title, or outright expulsion (and a lightsaber to the chest if you're a Sith). These are demonstrable in the Fixed Setting; they are a result of the facts. When playing within the setting, even these assumed consequences should be accepted and expected (at the very least on an OOC level) -- to think that your character is somehow above reproach in any means is poor play (I believe the preferred term for that is god-moding, I personally call it Teflon Armour).

Eventual because, well, they may not happen immediately, and they may not happen directly, but one should operate under the assumption that if you play the personally-attached Jedi or the let's-hug-it-out Sith, the logical, assumed consequences will eventually lead to something on some level, especially in a universe where there are demonstrable consequences for disobeying rules/running counter to the facts. When playing within the setting, this might be the result of a long plot or the expulsion/punishment of the character, or the character's decision to leave their respective Order, or ... the list can really go on.

In the end, what truly defines a character as realistic in the setting is not necessarily how they behave, but how they react to other characters, at least in my opinion. A player ought to be aware about where they're RPing, what the world is like, and how their character might be received by other characters. A character doesn't have to have that knowledge, of course. They can behave in a myriad of ways; they can be belligerent, flighty, not give two hoots about an Empire or a Republic -- almost anything! -- but their players have to be willing to deal with an IC clash of ideologies, the IC logical/assumed/eventual consequences of their actions, and the plethora of potentially awesome character-driven RP that can ensue from them.

It's when a player refuses to acknowledge the Fixed Setting and the idea of facts and consequences from running counter to those facts (or the consequences of running it vice-versa) that credibility begins to fray and a character comes along as far-fetched or even Mary Sue-ish. It's not sunshine and rainbows, but it's true to the universe.

And I'm not saying that there has to be a deep-seated reason for everything that your character does, but if there's not, and if it violates the facts, do not expect to have that character's behaviour go unnoticed.

This is why, in the end, I don't take a viewpoint of 'anything goes'. The very game we're playing doesn't allow for that; it's a world with very rigid ideologies and very real consequences. Nobody has to abide by the Fixed Setting, or with anything I've said above, but grounding a character firmly in the universe by thinking all of these things probably will make for a very immersive and enjoyable RP experience for all parties.

Edited February 18, 2012 by tehjai

casirabit · February 18, 2012

ProfessorWalsh;2933672 That makes less sense. A person openly dressed as a Jedi, on a Republic station, backed up by other people who look like Jedi, who absolutely are Force Sensitive, and who are carrying lightsabers is obviously a Jedi

Actually do you know how many smugglers can dress like a jedi? No, you probalby dont because you seem not to pay attention to anyone other than you.

Second, there is no way a person can tell if a person is Force Sensitive by just looking at a person or the person walking up to them. So please.

As far as carrying a lightsaber that is not always visible with the robes on, so no that doesn't work and furthermore I know some people that their class is a Jedi but not what the roleplay so again you are going back to what a person has on them which again is OOC knowledge and not IC.

It looks like you use a lot of OOC knowledge in your roleplay and that you can't do.

Edited February 18, 2012 by casi

tehjai · February 18, 2012

Actually do you know how many smugglers can dress like a jedi? No, you probalby dont because you seem not to pay attention to anyone other than you.

Second, there is no way a person can tell if a person is Force Sensitive by just looking at a person or the person walking up to them. So please.

Well, according to canon, yes there is; you look at a person and you can feel them out in the Force. You can do this with pretty much everyone, and a Jedi is able to feel if someone's "strong in the Force" (Vader could tell that Luke was Force-Sensitive by looking at his bloody X-Wing). Yes, the whole thing operates on a premise of assumption, but it is an accepted state of the game world that Force-sensitives can pick up on other Force-sensitives.

Assumptions are not meta-gaming, especially in a world where there's precedence for an assumption of this type (feeling out Force-sensitivity and then assuming a character might have something to do with Jedi).

I know some people that their class is a Jedi but not what the roleplay...

If you have feathers and quack, don't be upset if people immediately want to call you a duck. The people who are playing Jedi-who-aren't-really-Jedi are probably going to have to put up with lots of cases of mistaken identity, and it's really not the fault of the other players. We're not psychic, and in this game, Jedi have a certain visual look about them that invites IC assumption. Assumptions aren't inherently bad! Think of all the fun one could have with mistaken identity, the power-trip one could go on from being revered as a Jedi even when they aren't! And if you don't want to play any of that, correct the character.

Just like in real life, a character can make any assumption about any other character they want to. The poor RP arises when the player behind whoever's making the assumptions refuses to entertain the notion that those assumptions can be wrong. It's also poor form to expect that absolutely nobody takes your character at face value.

If you're playing not-a-Jedi-ICly for whatever reason (but are all dolled up like one), when someone approaches you as a Jedi, you can always say, "Uh, sorry dude, I'm no Jedi." The person approaching should accept that, but they're not metagaming for making the approach in the first place.

Same is true for treating the dude wearing durasteel and carrying an assault canon as a soldier and treating the gal in leatheris with a blaster at her side as someone who might invite trouble. It's just a first impression, and first impressions can be flat-out wrong.

It looks like you use a lot of OOC knowledge in your roleplay and that you can't do.

It's all knowledge that you deem to be OOC, even if there's an in-character, in-universe explanation for why a character might be able to make an educated guess and might make an assumption based on that guess. Not everyone treats titles and classes as OOC information, and I'm one of them. To me, it fits a world where there's rank and hierarchy. I'd like that to be respected, and if you don't want to play that way, let me know. I'm flexible that way. Most RPers are (or ought to be).

But it still stands: If an in-character, in-universe explanation can be made to justify what the OP witnessed and how the other players reacted, we can do the same for what the OP did.

My problem is not with the OP's assumptions; to me, they're realistic. My only problem with all of this is that in the end, it seemed to be an OOC issue with the content of the roleplay that was then taken IC (and seemed to end in the IC version of a gang-up). That's bad, and that's something that shouldn't be done, but the fact that the OP's character knew a Jedi when he saw one isn't exactly metagaming in and of itself.

Edited February 18, 2012 by tehjai

casirabit · February 18, 2012

But also in that reasoning it depends on how the person is roleplaying. Most will not take titles, names and levels abover some one's head as anything until they introduce themselves in a roleplay.

A smuggler can wear a jedi robe (seen it quite a few times) and in this case these padawans may not have known he was a jedi or even a jedi master. I have also seen Jedi dressed like Troopers, etc.

That's not to say they weren't acting bad, but we do not have their side of it. We only have his and there is always two sides to the story.

There could be a number of reasons . I never pay attention to a name, title or level until they roleplay their introduction. So if you walk up to me, don't expect me to know who you are or if you are a jedi or not if you don't roleplay it. You come up to me and just start roleplaying as a Jedi and expect me to take you at that without you even telling me who you are, I will just look at you and roleplay most of the time, excuse me do I know you?

And as far as OOC taking anything you know of a person that has not been IC you shouldn't do.

If you know OOC that person lets say going to try to attack you, and you block the attack before it is actually done, that is wrong. You can't block an attack if you don't know it's going to happen. When it happens you cand defend yourself but not stopping an attack all toghether since you have no knowledge IC it's going to happen.

Edited February 18, 2012 by casi

tehjai · February 18, 2012

But also in that reasoning it depends on how the person is roleplaying. Most will not take titles, names and levels abover some one's head as anything until they introduce themselves in a roleplay.

Fine, I'll concede that. I never walk up to a character and use their name before it's given; that's not what I'm getting at. But, you have to admit that there are distinct looks in this game. A Jedi looks a certain way. A Bounty Hunter looks a certain way. Is it wrong for someone to brush past a guy in a brown robe and say "Oh, sorry for bumping into you, Master Jedi" even if the guy in a brown robe isn't really a Jedi?

Do I have to just kinda sit there and wait for the guy in the brown robe to exposit upon me "HI I'M REALLY A SMUGGLER LOLOLOLOLOL"? Or can we use that incorrect assumption to start talking and actually move on to the introductions?

A smuggler can wear a jedi robe (seen it quite a few times) and in this case these padawans may not have known he was a jedi or even a jedi master.

Did the OP not establish that he was a Master in the scene? I thought he had done so. And yes, a smuggler can wear a Jedi robe. But he can also then be confused for a Jedi. It's all about visual cues here. What I'm trying to get at is that the assumptions that the OP's character made are not necessarily indicative of metagaming.

That's not to say they weren't acting bad, but we do not have their side of it. We only have his and there is always two sides to the story.

There could be a number of reasons . I never pay attention to a name, title or level until they roleplay their introduction.

They looked like Jedi and were behaving in ways not very Jedi-like. If they weren't really Jedi, then the scene could have been defused. I still maintain that it's very much IC for a traditionally-bent Jedi Master to intervene if he sees people he thinks are Padawans making out.

Now, I don't mean intervene as in the "corral" and "correct" fashion (that was way out of line), but it's IC for a Master to admonish those kids.

And as far as OOC taking anything you know of a person that has not been IC you shouldn't do.

I don't see where this happened in the OP. The padawans in question did nothing to defuse the OP's IC assumptions; in fact, in their denouncement of the Council, they all but confirmed them.

Yes, it's problematic that he referred to their titles as the big indicator; but even knowing that that's what he was doing OOCly, a Jedi Master could, theoretically, recognize padawans and recognize bad behaviour.

Using a title is really the mildest form of taking OOC information ICly -- and that doesn't even begin to account for the fact that some people actually do take titles and classes as IC information. Most people I've encountered on my server where I play Empire side-- especially where Sith are concerned -- do just that! On our server, when someone wearing the Darth title comes into your scene YOU PAY THE HELL ATTENTION TO WHATEVER SHE MIGHT SAY because Darths are the top rung in the Empire.

It works for us, but according to you we shouldn't do it because... you don't?

If you know OOC that person lets say going to try to attack you, and you block the attack before it is actually done, that is wrong. You can't block an attack if you don't know it's going to happen. When it happens you cand defend yourself but not stopping an attack all toghether since you have no knowledge IC it's going to happen.

Except that's ... totally not what's happened in the OP, and that's totally not what I'm advocating. With all due respect, I know the ins and outs of roleplay, especially where combat is concerned. Playing against someone who dodges everything and lands every punch is annoying, and what you're saying in the above paragraph is exactly how combat should be done.

But this isn't about combat. The crux of what I'm saying here is that sometimes, what can be perceived by one party as taking OOC info IC can actually be another party playing their character as doing things and making assumptions based on concepts and rules from within the setting.

And if you're concerned that taking OOC info IC is happening, bloody well ask! If you want people to give the Makey Outy Padawans the benefit of the doubt, also do so for the person that you immediately assume is metagaming just to establish control on the scene (but who may just be taking visual cues and canon facts to a logical conclusion).

Edited February 18, 2012 by tehjai

Verisimilitude: Roleplaying or just, "I do what I want!"

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Announcements