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

[HiroAyami]

We've almost reached a consensus, then.

 

Not quite, but almost.

 

Nobody is saying that an overt illicit romance (if such a thing is possible) between Jedi can pass without in-universe censure. I believe everyone agrees that is unrealistic.

 

The point of dispute is who finally acts as arbiter of whether it is "good" or "bad" RP, and what we do about it.

 

And the only reasonable answer, as mature adults, is "ignore it and don't let it ruin your Pretendy Fun-Time Games".

 

You cannot say "they must behave thus and so".

 

You cannot do more than say "I find your portrayal unrealistic and immersion-breaking, here's why, good day to you".

 

That is IT.

 

Nobody gets to say "the rules are this and that for RP". If someone having Pretendy Fun-Time Games is "ruining" your Pretendy Fun-Time Games by pretending to do something you don't agree with, tough luck. You only have control of your own (and your characters') actions. Go have Pretendy Fun-Times somewhere else.

 

 

There is also a point in RP communities/settings/universes where taboo things become far too common. Resulting in an admittedly, elitest view of "Sue" actions, there is a definite negativity that comes from this. Sure, you can preach acceptance and so forth, but the negative connotation is there, and like it or not, camp "live and let live" has always been a combination of underspoken and at times a minority of people who care.

 

Point in reference: LOTRO > Human/Elf Relationships.

 

Taboo, referenced as such a few times in game. Eventually every e-humper and their dog was involved in a relationship like that. Were the roleplayers bad? I don't think that applies, and I think assuming that people who dislike these sort of interactions are strictly saying people who partake in them are bad RPers isn't fair either.

 

That being said, it started with a few and slowly grew into a trend. Instead of becoming a realistic 'Ugh, really!?' topic or dramatic point of interaction, going through the motions of hiding it became moot, no one seemed to care at all. Why would they? clearly it's not as taboo as it's made out to be.

 

Things like that, absolutely kill Roleplay, negatively at least for some who like to branch out beyond their enclosed groups or guilds and integrate server time events with their own IC happenings.

 

 

"We should keep this a secret."

 

"Yeah but X and Y are in the same situation as us and no one says anything."

 

"What about W and Z?"

 

"They're allowed."

 

"A and B?"

 

"Allowed."

 

"Oh, how about C and D, I mean D isn't even a Jedi!"

 

"Same as X and Y, more down low."

 

"Right. So. Let's keep this a secret right? This clearly isn't -that- stressful or difficult."

 

Yeah... I went on the relationships bit but it's the same for instances like Trooper A being super rebellious, all the time, every interaction with an SO, without reprimand or care of. Eventually that becomes a simple norm and it starts looking rediculous to even bother taking orders or caring about rank and file.

 

So do you simply pick yourself up and walk off, changing venues to to speak so you 'ignore' them? How do you set a standard or seek to set one without overstepping bounds? Communication is quite viable, but when some points are already taken into IC, where to set the base line?

Edited February 20, 2012 by HiroAyami

[WhoTookMyName]

I have every intention on bedding a smok'n hot female member of the Empire and I am part of the Republic.

 

I hope this isn't interpeted like the whole Padawan thing......

[Kharnis]

That isn't a circumstance.

 

That would be more likely if they were hiding it. In this case they were practically flaunting it, which they wouldn't believe. Criminals who think that they are smarter than cops don't stand in front of cops and commit crimes. They commit crimes in secret, and everyone knows they are doing it, but cannot prove how.

 

They weren't able to stay ahead of the Order or the Council here because they were caught red handed.

 

They were at the Fleet. Where tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, move through every single day. Where three new faces wouldn't be noticed. Where no one knows their names. As opposed to Tython, where they'd see the same people, at the same time every single day.

 

Yeah, it's a puzzler as to why they might think they could get away with behaviour that wouldn't be tolerated on Tython. I mean, it's not like they were anonymous, right?

[HiroAyami]

Yeah, it's a puzzler as to why they might think they could get away with behaviour that wouldn't be tolerated on Tython. I mean, it's not like they were anonymous, right?

 

Until they introduced themselves and provided information.

 

Whole scenario.

 

That being said, lies could have been told, and while entirely unlikely, the three of them could have successfully lied to his character. Be it that there is no real agreement here, they could attempt, and from base context of Master experience/abilities and Padawan experience/abilities and piling further onto the shoulders of unlikely, one of the three could have reasonably failed to unsuccessfuly lie.

 

Regardless, that would be looking further into a situation and providing answers that are more forced than anything.

Edited February 20, 2012 by HiroAyami

[Kharnis]

Until they introduced themselves and provided information.

 

Whole scenario.

 

They didn't introduce themselves, though.

[HiroAyami]

They didn't introduce themselves, though.

 

 

 

Actually, I watched the interaction.

 

Introductions were had to the degree of: I am Master blah, what are your names, and so forth. I am unsure if they complied so far as to all give them their names as I sort of went to the bathroom at this point. I do remember that the introduction step was initiated.

 

Whether or not names were had during the time of observation, Walsch was a table away from me in the Cantina, names were dropped multiple times during their observed interactions. Whether or not he was listening in on them during that time, I don't know, by his opening post I assume that is the case.

 

During the "mouthing off" portion which I also got to watch, one of the Padawans gave her name and Master and specifically did walk off laughing about how little power he had. An IC response as well.

 

If you're willing to go out of your way to give the benefit of the doubt towards the Padawans in the situation, there should be no need to interrogate and break down everything from the OP's interaction and perspective as well.

 

That being said, hasn't the Master > Padawan situation been thoroughly described yet?

Edited February 20, 2012 by HiroAyami

[ScarletBlaze]

Just to add to this...

 

Due to multiple conflicting factoids (generated by BW and Lucas Camps) the only real rules that have been universally supported and should still suffice are:

 

1. Must be a Knight, or Master, in good standing.

2. Must be between two Jedi who were raised in the Order.

3. The Jedi must be able to demonstrate their relationship will not hinder or interfere with their duties to the Order.

4. Any child born would be given up to the Order unless not Force Sensitive.

 

These are also not widely spread or known even within the Order. Researchable, but they don't exatly sit you down in a classroom setting to explain these.

 

Oh Grand Master Satele Shan you so naughty...

 

Thank you. Now another question for you. A friend of mine is playing a smuggler and she is involved with a Jedi Master but they are not going to hide their relationship. He has roleplayed already he went to the order and discussed it.

 

My question is how can she keep from arguing with someone that will keep arguing they have to hide it when they have no reason to.

Edited February 20, 2012 by ScarletBlaze

[Darth_Slaine]

To the OP - I agree with some of what you say.

 

To everyone that disagrees with the OP - I agree with some of what you say.

 

Here's where I'm at with regards to this discussion: ICA = ICC, but you can only control your own character.

 

That is the sole standard of "reasonable behaviour" we can expect from ourselves and others when roleplaying.

 

If we take the OP's word on the events that happened (with clarification and confirmation from other witnesses), then it appears (important word) that the players of the Padawans in question have decided to ignore "consequences" (outcomes, which is a better word, may be more appropriate, but the saying uses consequences) and just act as they wish, without regard to in-universe logic.

 

Whether that is true or not we may never know.

 

To say "no Padawan would EVER do this" is incorrect. Any action a player chooses to have their character make is reasonable, provided that it does not infringe on another player. The measure of whether it is "good" or "bad" RP is solely predicated on whether the players involved accept that their IC actions can and should have reasonable IC outcomes. What the characters choose to believe is a whole different ball game.

 

If the players had responded to the OP OOC to the effect that there are no possible consequences for their behaviour, then I would wholeheartedly join in with agreeing that they were RPing "badly".

 

As it stands, though, all of the interactions seem to be IC, and we are here examining the aftermath of the OP's emotional response, which seems to be "it is unreasonable for the characters to believe there are no consequences", which is not true. It is UTTERLY reasonable for the characters to think they can get away with it. But at no point have we heard what the players believed. We can make all sorts of assumptions (as the OP has) that the players agree with their characters' beliefs, but they are ONLY assumptions, and I am not prepared to lambast another player for an assumption based on an account by a third party.

 

Now, before this looks like I'm bashing the OP, is there any person here who reasonably believes (and can rationally explain) why a player might take the stance that there CANNOT be any consequences for their actions? Because while he failed to take a step back, the OP is examining this as if that is what the players believe.

 

To the OP, my question is this: do you have the right to tell me how my character should behave and react? Because that is actually what you're asking of everyone here.

 

To everyone who disagrees with the OP: do roleplayers have a right to expect reasonable outcomes/consequences from RP based on the setting? Because some of you have flat-out said "no".

 

This whole thing could have been avoided through careful OOC communication, but I'm going to give the OP the benefit of the doubt: when the text is flying, sometimes you just have to write what comes out, you can't take forever to formulate a response, and OOC chatter will interfere with the flow of the RP. So you act IC, and hash it out later. Say... On the forums.

 

This is a good post and it brings up some new material.

 

I was thinking about IC consequences the other day and realized that they don't always unfold in the same linear fashion we'd expect them to IRL.

 

Some people prefer to view all their interactions as a developing narrative in which each scene provides the next chapter. Other people take an episodic approach, events are like sitcom plots and everything gets wrapped up in an hour and may or may not be mentioned again -- these episodes, when attached to a history, do not necessarily fall in the order they were first broadcast.

Additionally, there are those who weigh random RP and storyline RP differently...

 

Let's say I'm waiting to deliver Kharnis's secret Jedi love-child on my 1/2 Jawa commando-physisican. The baby's birth is an RP event that is part of a larger story arc. I've got an hour to kill and I see Alyx's trooper mistreating a Bantha so I give him a piece of my mind. Upshot: Alyx beats up my 1/2 Jawa and I stumbled away with a broken rib.

 

Now, I arrive to deliver Kharnis's baby, a scene in which I am a bit player -- I choose to put the consequences of my combat with Alyx aside so as not to steal Kharnis's baby-thunder (no one likes it when someone sighs and groans through someone else's RP scene).

 

Unfortunately, Alyx is rushing to the same birthing clinic because he left his keys in a sample jar that got sent to the lab. He sees me delivering a baby, none the worse for wear, and says, "Oi, you! I just broke your ribs! How are you delivering a baby?!!!"

 

The reason I have presented this elaborate story is to show that sometimes RPers will choose to either separate or compartmentalize storylines. Next time I saw Alyx I would have broken ribs but when I was slapping Kharnis's baby into Force-sensitive life I was fit as a fiddle. Sometimes, too, it is possible that one player's timeline does not unfold at the same rate ours does...

 

I doubt Kharnis stayed pregnant for 9 months of game time, which probably caused anger amongst those of his friends who thought they had months to buy him baby shower gifts, only to learn that he RPed his pregnancy for a week.

 

RP time does not always flow at the same rate for two RPers. We shouldn't always be surprised when ribs have healed and legs have grown back the next time we see someone. We shouldn't be concerned that this is a sign of "ignoring consequences."

 

The best place to enforce consequences, if that is a player's goal, is to do it in the life of his/her own character. Don't worry so much about the consequences in the lives of other characters -- even if they stem from your actions. Play your character how you think it should be played and others will do the same with their characters.

 

 

I want it to be clear that none of this is aimed at the nice poster I quoted. It merely got me thinking.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Darth_Slaine

[ProfessorWalsh]

Just to add to this...

 

Due to multiple conflicting factoids (generated by BW and Lucas Camps) the only real rules that have been universally supported and should still suffice are:

 

This isn't multiple conflicting factoids, those are the rules that are given for this time period in this game.

[Jellison]

They're morons.

 

I used to be a noob at RPing, but even then I understood that if a Jedi master tells me, a padawan to do something, I do it unless I want to get yelled at or thrown out an airlock.

[HiroAyami]

Thank you. Now another question for you. A friend of mine is playing a smuggler and she is involved with a Jedi Master but they are not going to hide their relationship. He has roleplayed already he went to the order and discussed it.

 

My question is how can she keep from arguing with someone that will keep arguing they have to hide it when they have no reason to.

 

It has certainly been proven, and of course there are always exceptions to the rules. I'd say those 4 things are listed guidelines more than anything.

 

With reference:

 

Grand Master Satele Shan engaged in a relationship with a Republic Officer she worked extensively with on missions and so forth. Their relationship was made known and the couple had a child. I believe her significant other was KIA and once she had the child the mandate of "release to care of Order" was demanded of her. She complied, however her child was not Force Sensitive and was also revealed to eventually become a glorified member of the Republic Special Forces and War Hero.

 

The mandate with relationships involving Jedi tied to the Order has been revised a few times, there was references to it within the KOTOR games as well. Storyline Developers and Writers have also confirmed this. The ones I listed were taken off of a non-elaborated story element, something I imagine was put out to provide some sort of grounds for Jedi romancing companions.

 

As it is, I would not seek to force strict factoids upon roleplay, but as you mentioned, the Jedi in question on your affordmended situation has soughtout a method to exclude themselves and generate an IC reasoning for their relationship existing and being acceptable which I can certainly appreciate.

 

Having roleplayed or at least including the concession in their backstory, I don't think there is any reason for them to have to do more than state the council approves, there is no reason for secrecy. I think a reasonable person in that situation would follow up with a PM or some sort of OOC follow through to verify if this was in fact truth or they found no record or confirmation.

Edited February 20, 2012 by HiroAyami

[ProfessorWalsh]

They were at the Fleet. Where tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, move through every single day. Where three new faces wouldn't be noticed. Where no one knows their names. As opposed to Tython, where they'd see the same people, at the same time every single day.

 

Yeah, it's a puzzler as to why they might think they could get away with behaviour that wouldn't be tolerated on Tython. I mean, it's not like they were anonymous, right?

 

There are less than 50,000 Jedi in the entire Jedi Order at this time.

1% of those are Knights, Masters, and Padawans.

Of those, in this time period, even fewer Padawans have lightsabers.

 

So, let us review...

 

Around 500 Jedi are Knights, Masters, or Padawans.

 

Masters make up the smallest group, Knights the second smallest, and Padawans the most numerous.

 

(There actually aren't enough Masters and Knights in the Order at this time to teach Padawans 1 on 1.)

 

So you are talking probably around 300 Padawans.

 

Only a small percent of those would have lightsabers. Probably less than 2% because this game says that acquiring a lightsaber is part of the Knight trials.

 

So that means 2 people openly admitting to be Padawans, who have lightsabers clipped to their belts, are very far from anonymous.

 

We are talking around 2 out of 6 people in the entire Jedi Order who could meet those criteria.

 

Now it is possible that they were lying about being Padawans, they just wanted to dress up like Jedi for some kind of intimate roleplay in roleplay... Though that wouldn't explain the lightsabers as those things aren't easy to come by.

Edited February 20, 2012 by ProfessorWalsh

[Kharnis]

Actually, I watched the interaction.

 

Introductions were had to the degree of: I am Master blah, what are your names, and so forth. I am unsure if they complied so far as to all give them their names as I sort of went to the bathroom at this point. I do remember that the introduction step was initiated.

 

Whether or not names were had during the time of observation, Walsch was a table away from me in the Cantina, names were dropped multiple times during their observed interactions. Whether or not he was listening in on them during that time, I don't know, by his opening post I assume that is the case.

 

During the "mouthing off" portion which I also got to watch, one of the Padawans gave her name and Master and specifically did walk off laughing about how little power he had. An IC response as well.

 

If you're willing to go out of your way to give the benefit of the doubt towards the Padawans in the situation, there should be no need to interrogate and break down everything from the OP's interaction and perspective as well.

 

That being said, hasn't the Master > Padawan situation been thoroughly described yet?

 

Fair enough. This is literally the first time that anyone has said names were given by the Padawans in question. With that in mind, I have a few additional questions:

 

You are certain that the names given were true?

You are certain that the Padawans in question were trained on Tython, and not by some rogue Jedi?

You are certain that the Masters' names they gave were real?

 

 

Once again, no one is saying that the behaviour of the Padawans is proper. No one is saying that the behaviour of Walsh's character isn't proper. What we are saying is that the argument that the behaviour of the Padawans wasn't realistic is flat out wrong, and there are many reasons why this is wrong. The behaviour of the Padawans was very realistic.

 

Hormone-filled teenagers act, quite frankly, stupidly. And they don't care about consequences, because they do not think there are any. They rebel against rules and authority because they think they know better. They laugh at "old people" because they believe they are more clever. They lie to people demanding their names because they think it's funny to trick the uptight fogey.

 

You don't know the full story of these Padawans. And that's why trying to claim "you're doing it wrong" is unwise. You are operating with incomplete information. How can you possibly know they're doing it wrong, unless you find out from the players the reasons the characters are acting the way they are?

 

But no one bothered to do that. Instead, Walsh decided that his Star Wars sensibilities were offended, and he came running to the forum to proclaim their heresy. And in doing so, he completely failed to see the irony of claiming that "verisimilitude" was important to RP properly in Star Wars, all while not even attempting to find out if the players of the Padawans actually had a reason to have their characters act the way they did.

 

Did the players have a legitimate, well thought-out reason for the behaviour? Probably not. They probably did it for the "shock value" of being "naughty" in a place of public RP. Or they're brand new at RPing, and went to the extreme of making their characters unique, because they feel their characters have to stand out somehow.

 

Unfortunately, we'll never know now. Every single person who observed this and were offended failed to OOCly ask them for the reason. Instead, the OP came stampeding to the forum to give vent to his outrage. And if these Padawan players were indeed new to RP, you've just encouraged them to say, "Screw this. It's not worth it." Congratulations. Instead of encouraging growth in RP, you've just contributed to its stagnation.

[ScarletBlaze]

It has certainly been proven, and of course there are always exceptions to the rules. I'd say those 4 things are listed guidelines more than anything.

 

With reference:

 

Grand Master Satele Shan engaged in a relationship with a Republic Officer she worked extensively with on missions and so forth. Their relationship was made known and the couple had a child. I believe her significant other was KIA and once she had the child the mandate of "release to care of Order" was demanded of her. She complied, however her child was not Force Sensitive and was also revealed to eventually become a glorified member of the Republic Special Forces and War Hero.

 

The mandate with relationships involving Jedi tied to the Order has been revised a few times, there was references to it within the KOTOR games as well. Storyline Developers and Writers have also confirmed this. The ones I listed were taken off of a non-elaborated story element, something I imagine was put out to provide some sort of grounds for Jedi romancing companions.

 

As it is, I would not seek to force strict factoids upon roleplay, but as you mentioned, the Jedi in question on your affordmended situation has soughtout a method to exclude themselves and generate an IC reasoning for their relationship existing and being acceptable which I can certainly appreciate.

 

Thank you.

[Phoenikzi]

I'm with OP here ... to a point.

 

I watched SW on the big screen in 77 and RP'd since the mid-80's.

 

I've RP'd with various graphical online arena's since 2000.

 

I really like sticking to the Canon/Mythology/Lore of the Worlds my characters inhabit.

 

I really like it when everyone else is RP'ing this way too.

 

I really don't like a proliferation of highly unlikely and lore-stretching romantic relationships on a RP server. These seem to slowly grow in popularity on many RP servers to an almost cult-like level... VERY sad IMHO.

 

I HATE emote fighting - I HATE roll fighting... Ridiculous activities IMHO. They leave me cold.

 

I LOVE PVP/duels when ic against those who are also ic. Fantastic RP activities IMHO. They excite me and entertain me.

 

I want to see everyone playing the archetype/role/class they selected and appropriate to the level they've reached.

 

I find people playing powerful characters at low levels, mundane characters at high levels, or anything other than the class their character is in within the game mechanics highly problematic as far as immersion is concerned.

 

BUT ... and Professor this is the rub of it ... I see people doing all this stuff I don't like pretty much every time I log on. I participate in ridiculous (IMHO) emote fighting, and RP with level 50 Sith Warrior Cantina dancers even though I would so much rather they were Sith Darth's with a nefarious Galaxy domination master plan. I never try to force a emote fighter to duel, or question a lvl 50 Marauder players right to choose to RP a Cantina slave. When I see the sort of Lore-stretching RP you witnessed I often interact, and my character depending on his/her 'character' may well criticise, admonish, etc. But this is always played with great caution and hopefully with some wit to put a big smile on the other players (not characters) face. This is a game and we ALL should be having fun right? The lore-stretchers are RP'ing too and it unequivocally can never be 'my way or the highway' ... It's an Massively Multi-Player game, and all each of us has is a license from Bioware to PLAY the game, not to RUN the game.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Phoenikzi

[AlyxDinas]

So do you simply pick yourself up and walk off, changing venues to to speak so you 'ignore' them?

 

Yes. You do. Once it becomes clear that there is not reciprocation which you will find stimulating or rewarding.

 

How do you set a standard or seek to set one without overstepping bounds?

 

Through self adherence to it.

[HiroAyami]

Fair enough. This is literally the first time that anyone has said names were given by the Padawans in question. With that in mind, I have a few additional questions:

 

You are certain that the names given were true?

You are certain that the Padawans in question were trained on Tython, and not by some rogue Jedi?

You are certain that the Masters' names they gave were real?

 

As I mentioned before, from the simple realism of Master Experience trumping a Padawans, I'd say of those three questions, a Master would be able to sense some truth, some lies, if anything from just one of the three.

 

From a simple power view though, no one likes to relinquish control of their characters, and fewer roleplayers are inclined to deem themselves weaker in an IC setting. In a "I'm the star of my own world" sense, who wants to be under powered or, not have some things that make them stand out? For Jedi, it's often with regards to their abilities with the Force.

 

In my circle we trust each other enough to put something out there and let the other party confirm or ignore it. Sometimes its searching intent, sometimes it's feelings, sometimes it's just subtle things we throw out. That's self indicative of a style and comfort of having a group you're used to.

 

However, asking are you sure about everything only helps validify and exonerate their actions. If you don't know those things, there is a point where benefit of the doubt is just overt courtesy readily and available to be taken advantage of. Be it that nothing OOC was exchanged we can only assume so much, and at the rate things are going in the thread, the questions simply turn from general queries into picking apart someones argument until they have no leg to stand on. If you're throwing hypothesis into the picture you may as well throw out realism and logic as well.

 

 

Did the players have a legitimate, well thought-out reason for the behaviour? Probably not. They probably did it for the "shock value" of being "naughty" in a place of public RP. Or they're brand new at RPing, and went to the extreme of making their characters unique, because they feel their characters have to stand out somehow.

 

Unfortunately, we'll never know now. Every single person who observed this and were offended failed to OOCly ask them for the reason. Instead, the OP came stampeding to the forum to give vent to his outrage. And if these Padawan players were indeed new to RP, you've just encouraged them to say, "Screw this. It's not worth it." Congratulations. Instead of encouraging growth in RP, you've just contributed to its stagnation.

 

As far as RP goes, it did look like an attention grab. Three female Jedi doing subtly erotic things? Why do two girls make out in public? Same difference. I mean, I have no life to speak of and I won't pretend I do, I clearly paid some attention haha.

 

As it was not a storyline or interaction I desired, OOCly inquiring to me felt unnecessary. Also, keeping in mind, the impression I got from their interactions was quite negative and, for the most part if I can almost guarantee a negative experience or interaction in my mind, I do try to isolate myself from it. Point of preference I suppose.

 

That being said, to say anyone clearly encouraged stagnation is a bit out of line.

 

I am entitled to my judgments and if they unfortunately made a horrible first impression, that's what happens. Would I ignore someone I thought needed the help, or more importantly, might benefit and potentially listen? Absolutely not.

 

OP was directly involved so his experience differs from mine. As I said before, as an observer I was not impressed, more importantly be it their style, their attitude translating into RP, and perhaps their characters, I was quite put off from interacting with them at all.

Edited February 20, 2012 by HiroAyami

[Darth_Slaine]

As I mentioned before, from the simple realism of Master Experience trumping a Padawans, I'd say of those three questions, a Master would be able to sense.

 

From a simple power view though, no one likes to relinquish control of their characters, and fewer roleplayers are inclined to deem themselves weaker in an IC setting. In a "I'm the star of my own world" sense, who wants to be under powered or, not have some things that make them stand out? For Jedi, it's often with regards to their abilities with the Force.

 

In my circle we trust each other enough to put something out there and let the other party confirm or ignore it. Sometimes its searching intent, sometimes it's feelings, sometimes it's just subtle things we throw out. That's self indicative of a style and comfort of having a group you're used to.

 

I think something else we all agree on is that there is nothing wrong with a Master being able to pull rank on a Padawan - if the player of the "Master" gets direct permission from the Padawan's player.

 

If you get permission to play the Master to someone's Padawan, it doesn't matter if you have the in-game Master title... or if you are a Jedi class character. At the same time, you could have the in-game title and even have a very pretty lightsaber, but without permission from the Padawan's player you cannot impose authority over him/her.

 

Someone should put together a consensus guide for this thread so we don't keep reinventing the wheel.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Darth_Slaine

[ProfessorWalsh]

I think something else we all agree on is that there is nothing wrong with a Master being able to pull rank on a Padawan - if the player of the "Master" gets direct permission from the Padawan's player.

 

If you get permission to play the Master to someone's Padawan, it doesn't matter if you have the in-game Master title... or if you are a Jedi class character. At the same time, you could have the in-game title and even have a very pretty lightsaber, but without permission from the Padawan's player you cannot impose authority over them.

 

Someone should put together a consensus guide for this thread so we don't keep reinventing the wheel.

 

Okay Slaine, then if I have to get permission to play my Jedi Master around Padawans then is it not fair for me to get their OOC consent to playing a Jedi at all when interacting with me? See because this is where this is heading, I disagree with the idea that we need OOC permission to play our characters.

 

You roll with the punches. Good RP'ers do it all the time.

[AlyxDinas]

You roll with the punches. Good RP'ers do it all the time.

 

You didn't.

[Darth_Slaine]

Okay Slaine, then if I have to get permission to play my Jedi Master around Padawans then is it not fair for me to get their OOC consent to playing a Jedi at all when interacting with me? See because this is where this is heading, I disagree with the idea that we need OOC permission to play our characters.

 

You roll with the punches. Good RP'ers do it all the time.

 

Actually, I never said that. You seem to have misunderstood or misrepresented the argument... but that might just be your style.

 

You can play your character as you want but you need permission to impose authority over another player's character. Unless your character is solely defined by imposing authority on random characters that you meet this should not be an issue.

 

Nothing entitles you to authority over the actions of other people's characters.... except for their consent.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Darth_Slaine

[Rhaethe]

I'm with OP here ... to a point.

 

I watched SW on the big screen in 77 and RP'd since the mid-80's.

 

I've RP'd with various graphical online arena's since 2000.

 

I really like sticking to the Canon/Mythology/Lore of the Worlds my characters inhabit.

 

I really like it when everyone else is RP'ing this way too.

 

I really don't like a proliferation of highly unlikely and lore-stretching romantic relationships on a RP server. These seem to slowly grow in popularity on many RP servers to an almost cult-like level... VERY sad IMHO.

 

I HATE emote fighting - I HATE roll fighting... Ridiculous activities IMHO. They leave me cold.

 

I LOVE PVP/duels when ic against those who are also ic. Fantastic RP activities IMHO. They excite me and entertain me.

 

I want to see everyone playing the archetype/role/class they selected and appropriate to the level they've reached.

 

I find people playing powerful characters at low levels, mundane characters at high levels, or anything other than the class their character is in within the game mechanics highly problematic as far as immersion is concerned.

 

BUT ... and Professor this is the rub of it ... I see people doing all this stuff I don't like pretty much every time I log on. I participate in ridiculous (IMHO) emote fighting, and RP with level 50 Sith Warrior Cantina dancers even though I would so much rather they were Sith Darth's with a nefarious Galaxy domination master plan. I never try to force a emote fighter to duel, or question a lvl 50 Marauder players right to choose to RP a Cantina slave. When I see the sort of Lore-stretching RP you witnessed I often interact, and my character depending on his/her 'character' may well criticise, admonish, etc. But this is always played with great caution and hopefully with some wit to put a big smile on the other players (not characters) face. This is a game and we ALL should be having fun right? The lore-stretchers are RP'ing too and it unequivocally can never be 'my way or the highway' ... It's an Massively Multi-Player game, and all each of us has is a license from Bioware to PLAY the game, not to RUN the game.

 

 

How similar you are to me in the ways outlined in this post is ever so slightly disturbing.

 

/end thread derail

Edited February 20, 2012 by Rhaethe

[ProfessorWalsh]

You didn't.

 

I certainly did.

 

In character I did exactly as my character would in that situation. Aside from going to the Jedi Council and/or confronting their master because such a thing was impossible.

 

I complained about it later and outlined why such behavior damages the setting. Which is still rolling with the punches. I simply have decided to cease any further interaction with those particular Padawans due to what I see as poor and unacceptable RP'ing.

[HiroAyami]

I think something else we all agree on is that there is nothing wrong with a Master being able to pull rank on a Padawan - if the player of the "Master" gets direct permission from the Padawan's player.

 

If you get permission to play the Master to someone's Padawan, it doesn't matter if you have the in-game Master title... or if you are a Jedi class character. At the same time, you could have the in-game title and even have a very pretty lightsaber, but without permission from the Padawan's player you cannot impose authority over him/her.

 

 

This brings up the question of what happens when someone RPing a Padawan enters a public scene and is confronted by a Master. The Master, out of a thread generated etiquette of 'communication is key', need that Padawans permission to say, "I'm a Master, you should stop doing that."?

 

Not every RP community revolves around OOC communication. Some function perfectly fine without it. Ask some Aion or Guild Wars roleplayers and they'd probably scratch their heads and blink at you saying something along the lines of, "Oh, I never really needed to..."

 

I can certainly agree that anything immediate or warranting some sort of reaction in terms of power/force/etc should be agreed upon somehow be it OOC communication or obvious submission on a side. However someone Roleplaying a Knight, introducing themselves as a Knight and meeting a self Introduced Master should probably warrant a little respect towards said Master, at least in the event of not playing out a character that has little or no respect.

 

 

Someone should put together a consensus guide for this thread so we don't keep reinventing the wheel.

 

But dude, I reinvented my wheel with spikes and an emergency wheel.

 

... Wait, was that innovating? @@

[Kharnis]

However, asking are you sure about everything only helps validify and exonerate their actions. If you don't know those things, there is a point where benefit of the doubt is just overt courtesy readily and available to be taken advantage of. Be it that nothing OOC was exchanged we can only assume so much, and at the rate things are going in the thread, the questions simply turn from general queries into picking apart someones argument until they have no leg to stand on. If you're throwing hypothesis into the picture you may as well throw out realism and logic as well.

I'm going to concentrate on this part of your post here, because this is the crux of my point. We have no choice but to hypothesise because we don't know anything. Yet, because we don't know anything, we're supposed to use realism and logic to judge these players? How can we possibly do that if we don't have the facts? Instead of using logic and realism, we are now using biases and pre-conceived notions, which is a rather poor foundation to base an argument and assumption on.

 

Let me give you an example. If Walsh had've encountered my character Kharnis in this situation, he could bluster and threaten all he wanted. Kharnis would've (at best) laughed at him. Why?

 

Because Kharnis never trained on Tython. He's a Dark Jedi, whose Master was his mother. His mother was also a Dark Jedi, who believed that the Order was incapable of defeating the Sith with their mindset and philosophies. So, she trained Kharnis to be a weapon, a Force-capable weapon who could do all those things the Order is incapable of and unwilling to do. Walsh could threaten to go to the Council all he likes; he wouldn't get anywhere, because there would be no record of a Jedi named Kharnis anywhere in the Order.

 

But, he (and everyone around participating) would never know this, because he never bothered to figure out what was going on. Which is ironic for someone claiming that other players are bad RPers.

 

 

As far as RP goes, it did look like an attention grab. Three female Jedi doing subtly erotic things? Why do two girls make out in public? Same difference. I mean, I have no life to speak of and I won't pretend I do, I clearly paid some attention haha.

 

As it was not a storyline or interaction I desired, OOCly inquiring to me felt unnecessary. Also, keeping in mind, the impression I got from their interactions was quite negative and, for the most part if I can almost guarantee a negative experience or interaction in my mind, I do try to isolate myself from it. Point of preference I suppose.

 

And chances are, it was an attention grab. I may be willing to argue for the reasons why a character may be acting the way they did, but I'm cynical enough to believe the worst. As for feeling that you felt it unnecessary to inquire OOCly due to a probable negative experience, I fully understand and sympathise. I would've probably done the same for the exact same reason.

 

I wouldn't, however, come to the forum to express my outrage and indignation. The OP can't say the same. And I'd like to think that even if I did do such a thing, the fact that the majority of the posters are saying, "Um, it's actually realistic for these reasons," would make me re-think my position and not continually re-state my position while dismissing counter-arguments with a "nuh uh."