Evil Characters in WoD

Discussion about quests and other in-game special events

Moderators: Siobhan, Sebastian, Drocket

Postby Marius the Black on Sun Aug 17, 2003 2:20 am

Good advice Homer, which I think is sound, too. I'd like to say that it isn't my intention to split the role-players and the non-roleplayers up, because that sort of division is not a good thing. What I would like to do, rather, is have a sort of 'Today I feel like roleplaying. I know where the roleplayers are, I'll go there and role-play' sort of area, where you could go if you wanted to have a little fun in-character.

I do not like the 'I'm an Evil Character, so I can do stuff against the rules' line of argument, because I think it is silly and immature. Going agains the rules does not make you evil, it makes you stupid, and your experience in WoD extremely short-lived. When I am 'evil' my characters simply have a moral outlook beyond the 'I am heroic' and every variant thereof.

I can understand that people don't like evil characters, because they don't trust them. You can never trust evil characters, because they're never understood. It's a sort of the defining point when meeting up with a villain.

You mentioned that playing an evil character involves not hurting or offending anyone. Obviously, at least to some degree, someone is going to be offended by the evil character's actions. While you don't have to be uncharismatic to be evil (think of con artists, who you really like until they run off with all your money) you definately end up upsetting someones sense of values.

I'd like to think, though, that people could diferentiate between characterisation and the real world. I am happy to have Marius called all manner of things and for Marius to be upset. But I, as a player, am not Evil, and would not like to be called thus. I play Marius because as I was in WoD, I found that with no PvP, I could quite happily be evil, provide the proverbial 'brooding, evil char who is questionably evil and does good things from time to time' into a world that seemed to picture-perfect.

Now, I understand that some might read that as 'I made Marius to wreck WoD'. I didn't. I made him to enhance it, to give it the flavour it was missing. What I think is important is that people define evil too easily and too simply, making it a loose net of all the values that [people] don't like.

Marius, if you put him in a basket of Values, is Neutral. He doesn't care about other people, he only cares about himself. He wouldn't directly harm another [player], but he's not exactly Mr. Chivalrous.

But;

He's labelled 'Evil' because he wants to rule Britannia, and the Evil theme comes along with being 'I'm the smart Wizard behind the throne guy (this is a metaphor, don't get upset by his title) who wants to take over the world, because he thinks he's better' - which is fine by me. He'll never actually rule the world, unless by some bizarre reasoning the Seers do some sort of quest with it, but otherwise, it's a goal long lost. He's estentially the Mr. Burns of the game world; the 'tyranically evil' man who is really weak and pathetic. I mean, he gets wealth, sells treasure, helps out new people, goes on hunts, is nice to people, etc., etc.; all for the reason that it helps him 'get closer to the throne'.

I don't see why this is unacceptable. Surely Order Guards don't brand a player evil when they join the Chaos guards, and so on, so why mark a person who wants to play a character with different values?

I would say that Values are a very personal thing, and some people aren't ready to have their own put into question by someone else who is doing things contrary to their beliefs, which is fine.

It is also the reason I desire putting up a 'Role-Play section', for those who want to be nearer the buffet` of that type of interaction, rather than sitting in the 'Non-Role Play' section. Again, I emphasise that I don't want to split up the community, just give it another option.

WoD should by all means be a collective group. But that shouldn't mean everyone has to do the same thing and if you do something different, you're ruining the game. The reason we play is because it's a game, and we can be whatever we want. Some people just play for fun, but others use it as creative expression.


I can understand that people play 'evil' as a justification of doing things that are wrong. And I can see how the history of that (though I was never a part of it) would put a blemish on the evil characters trying to make 'good' in WoD. The important thing to remember though is that there is Marius, but there is a collection of a lot of other characters who I play, who are not evil. In fact, one is aiming to be a Virtue Guard! In any case, I understand that playing 'evil' is a taboo to some people, but I'd like to think that given the chance and opportunity, I could prove that I'm not out to ruin the spirit of WoD, but flourish in it.

I can't stress enough how important it is that other people have fun. I've been a role-player for some time now, and the best days you have are the ones where everyone is having fun. The same can be said about WoD.

In any case, Marius is away in the cupboard for awhile, until a time where he can be played without a blemish to his name. If anyone was personally offended by him, feel free to drop me a private message and explain why, and I'll attempt to not do what he did in the future.

In closing, I'd like to say that I'm happy in WoD, and would never do something to ruin the great community we have here. It's a very special place that I treasure, and I would hope that it continues to last well into the years.

-M
Marius the Black
Oldbie
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2003 2:00 pm
Location: Tower of Scorn

Players vs. characters

Postby Homer on Sun Aug 17, 2003 5:24 am

Let's ponder a basic question to help us understand each other. Why do you suppose it is so difficult for "other" folks to differentiate between players and characters. Now, I put the quotes around "other" because that is the way we all think about the problem. After all, I am the one adult here in full control of my faculties, so I am fully aware at all times that this is a video game.
Hogwash. I don't go into WoD to watch cartoons. I emerse myself completely in that silly little cartoon figure one inch high. For a few hours, I AM Homer Oldham and those trolls are my ancient enemies. Oh sure, I am aware on some level that I am a middle-aged management consultant playing a role, but I do not go to the World of Dreams to be reminded of that. The enemies of the Queen are my own enemies. Killers of townsfolk and guards are criminals. I try to fight the urge to hate such killers, because I am sworn to support them having fun, but it is hard to do and it interferes a bit with my own fantasizing.
BUT, you may say, I can hate the killer CHARACTER without hating the player. The answer is "not always" and "not easily."
If I have said it once I have said it 3672 times- I have the most fun supporting the fun of others. Other WHAT? Well, at some level, I am obviously talking about players. When we help newbies get started in the game, we assume that we are helping a new PLAYER get started, but we roleplay the process as if it is the CHARACTER who is newly arrived. When we perform rescues, the player is really in no danger, but we know that his/her identification with the character is strong enough that harm to the character is harm to the player and the same goes for help. We are all constantly trying to lose our identities in our characters and count on the fact that other players are doing the same thing.
But role players are different, right. Well, kind of. The process goes double for them. A good roleplayer loses himself entirely in his role. He feels what the character feels, thinks what the character thinks, and so forth. He is a kind of actor, and there is a reason that actors talk of "having a feel for a role" or "understanding his character's motivation" or "identifying with his character." If the other players dealing with a character constantly remember that he is just a character played by someone completely different, then he is a lousy roleplayer and the whole virtual world concept falls apart. We start off creating the character as something foriegn to us and then we become that character and the longer we play it the more it becomes like us and we become like it. If that doesn't happen, we get tired of playing the character and eventually stop.
But we play all kinds of characters, right? Some are like us and some are not, right? I am not so sure. I can really only examine my own case. I will tell you a little secret. Every character I have ever played for any period of time was me. Homer is the part of me that is about as good as I get. At times, I am arrogant and professorial and am more like Penn-Hedley than Homer in style, and I am often lost and don't really know what I am talking about. I seldom actually act like Smudge, but in my heart I sometimes wish I could be more like him- freer of responsibilities and inhibitions like Smudge and thumb my nose at authority and foolish rules. I am most definitely rude and antisocial like Pinkwater (sometimes in action but more often in my head) and, like Ajax, I am a a conflicted mixture of both a brutish and romantic nature. Since I know these things, playing the character individually teaches me something about myself. Now, there is a difference between playing a role in the game and playing the game in a role that we should recognize. Any of us could step in to help a Seer by playing something completely foriegn, like an Evil Liche Lord. It would be be fun. However, moving into WoD to live everyday as an Evil Liche Lord would be something else again. Most folks would get tired of that in a hurry, because it is against their nature.
In a way, the identities we assume in virtual worlds are wishes. We wish for what we would like to be (at least for a while) and we become it. As proverbs say, we should be careful what we wish for, lest we get it.
Now, I am not saying that folks who roleplay evil are doomed to become evil. However, anyone who says something like "people should remember that the CHARACTER is evil, not the PLAYER" has not really thought through the whole process. We're not SUPPOSED to make that distinction and most of us would rather not have to make it. If a player constantly puts the others in the game in a position where they have to remember it is just a stupid old game, they are not really being good playmates. If such a player thinks that breaking the fantasy in that way makes them the Great Roleplayer, they have got it all backwards. The supporters of roleplay in the game are the folks who help to blur the distinction between the fantasy and the reality, not define it. When I play Smudge, I WANT people to think I AM Smudge- that the player is the character is the player is the character. Of course, that only works because I don't MIND being Smudge, and that is why I don't create a character for myself that is not someone I can respect, or at least understand.
I think that in a virtual fantasy world, especially in a world/community as intimate as WoD, a player will ultimately only enjoy playing a character they don't mind having confused with their own identity.
Homer
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2002 11:01 am
Location: Independence, Missouri

Postby Marius the Black on Sun Aug 17, 2003 7:14 am

Homer,

The question is not arguably that I do not wish to be identified as Marius, as indeed I felt you were relating to, in your disccusion. While I can accept the argument that playing a role is about immersing ones' very self into that said role, to blur the distinction of fantasy and reality, it is when that misconceptions occur between the two that lead to undue assumptions that I find myself openly judged for an act, that by your definitions, was very good.

My next few statements will reflect my personal perceptions, and I am not making generalisations as a whole. "Roleplayers" is for clarification, not to 'clump' people together.


Characterisation.

For role-players, the act of creating a characater is an initimate affair. Background stories, motivations, values, even favourite foods and drinks come into question. When a role-player decides they are going to make a character, a lot of time and effort goes into the ordeal. Mentioned in the Buc's Den topic, is Homers' account of his creation of his five characters, who truly became 'alive' once he immersed himself in them, rather than the game. However, what I find now is that 'to role-play evil, you must have some tendancy to be evil, because to immerse yourself in that role, you must have background in that area.' Mentioned above in his most recent reply, Homer said that people put themselves in into a role when they create a character, and that playing a character of a certain perspective enhances that perspective;

... we become that character and the longer we play it the more it becomes like us and we become like it.


I disagree. What is important to remember is while in a role, the dimensions of the real world do not exist. Marius the Black does not wonder if he has any milk in the fridge for tomorrow, or if he wants Coke with his pizza. Marius the Black wonders if the Trolls in Minoc are about to strike.

In this way, Marius does not become a part of the person playing him any more than the UO Client is running for. While good role-playing does ask for immersion of the role, such immersion should only last for as long as the role is played for. Ergo, such judgements about the character should be removed once the role is shed.

I highlight this by saying that if an actor played a villian in a movie, he should not be hunted down and beaten, when walking down the street 'out-of-character'. There are many examples of when this has indeed happened, and each time many people say 'That's stupid - he's not Doctor Sinister, he's Fred Alex (random names, it's not a specific example).' and so on.

A point of interest to me is regarding the acceptance of an evil character. I agree - an evil character should not be accepted by all goodly folk, for whatever reasons. I agree that virtuous people should shun their 'vile' counterparts, on the basis of the good vs. evil axis that prefaces' so many role-playing games. That is fine: I have no objection to people disliking Marius, or hating him. It is when this extension occurs to the player in non-role-specific occurances that I find the notion upsetting.


Psychology of Understanding.

Fundamentally, Role-Playing is about enacting a role that is otherwise different to one faced in regular society. However, Role-Playing is suffered with three assumptions that cause limitations in understanding;

1. People only play roles based partly on themselves or 'things they would like to be'.

2. Anyone who plays a character expresses inhibitions that he/she would otherwise have in society.

3. A Character is an exaggerated extension of a players' persona.


These are, while sometimes a reason for assuming a character, not entirely true. As a role-player in real life, and a Dungeon Master, I am in charge of every single role in a gaming world outside of the 'heroes'. I am the drunkard on the street corner, the friendly baker who is good at magic, the mail-clad thugs that kidnap the Paladins' daughter, and so on.

This does not mean I have an alchohol dependancy, expert culinary skills, and a desire for vandalism. It means I can put myself in that frame of mind. That, I think, is the biggest distinction between the perception of role-playing and role-playing itself.

Role-playing is about being in a frame of mind that is outside the normal personality of a player. It is important to understand that while many people play their ideal selves, or what they desire to be, not all do. This important exception to the 'rule' makes for reasoning that players can play things that are not normally quantified with 'extension of self' identities.

I can not say that I never have played a person I would like to be. That is absurd. But I must say that I have played characters (in UO and in other forms of media) that are not the most desirable to play, they are simply a fun challenge to play. I can understand the rationalisation behind "Well, if I'm playing something I want to be, isn't everybody? That's roleplaying.", but I disagree with it. The very essence of role-playing is about adopting another role, any values or ideals attached to that concept are merely personal preference, ideology, or assumption.


Conceptual Differences

To play a character is not to be a character. It is not the "to be, or not to be" of the fantasy world. Granted, a player may adopt the role for a limited time, "becoming" a player, but to take something away from such a session is experience in characterisation, not in discovery of self.

I agree with the statement that you can learn more about yourself through role-play. I feel this is because you learn the fine art of expression, and in expressing 'personal' feelings, (those of the character) touch the core of yourself that you can draw upon when not in role. Such is the joy of learning, as experience teaches us more about ourselves, no matter how delineated that line to conclusive understanding may be drawn.


One Role to Rule Them All

I think perhaps that the biggest issue that seems to reoccur in nearly every post is the line between acceptable playing of a role.

Consider this;

When a person plays a role, they expect to be treated as their character should be treated. They respond as their character would respond. They feel as their character would feel. This immersion lends itself to the idea that to play a role effectively, one must have the background experience to draw upon. Playing a role demands full immersion, total devotion, and eventually a 'rubbing-off' of that characters' traits onto the player who has created the character. This intimate relationship allows for a wonderful play of character - one who is remembered for his quirks, funny lines, and so on.

From this, the basic stereotypes are drawn;

When a person plays a virtuous character, he extols that he, as a player, is kind and benevolent. That such qualities that are goodly and true are reflected in himself to as much degree as are exaggerated in his assumed persona.

Therefore, when a person plays an evil character, he reflects the darker nature of himself, his desire to cause harm and spite those around him. To define Evil as the absense of Good, one must infer that Good is the absense of Evil.

But the limitations of this are brought upon by the definition of Evil. It's a very strong word. Some use it loosely, and others condemn it to the most vilest of all things they consider Not Good. In this way, definitions create the distinctions of the arguments. When I decry Marius as "Evil", it is not neccessarily the absense of good. Rather, it is a different set of core values that supercede the "I am the hero" lines of reasoning.

Homer, I understand that when you explained back the "You're not allowed to hate me, because I'm not an Evil player" line of reasoning, I understood how that may have come across. However, perhaps to clarify;

"To dislike an [Evil] character does not require hating the player."

I do not expect to be hated as playing Janus, simply because I am Marius' player. I do not expect that Janus should be looked on as an 'escape' from Marius, or anything other than 'a different character'. It is to that specific incidence alone I have taken offence to. This, in turn, moves back to my most pressing point; A player should not be judged for his characterisations. Characters, fully and unequivocably, can be persecuted - even killed - but I do not expect the same treatment when I am just the Player.

I cannot stress enough that playing a role does not neccessitate exaggerating one's own personality, it is simply the assumption of a role outside one's own. To play a role is to create the belief of an entirely different character, a character who is very real and very much 'alive'. When in role, there should be belief that the little blips on screen are "Marius" not "that guy who plays Marius". But when it is "that guy who plays Marius", there should not be the automatic association that 'that is Marius'.

I will not accept the line of reasoning that people only play themselves exaggerated, and that to play an evil character is to represent one's own self in a negative light. I cannot agree to the fact that people must always identify a player with a character when not in role, and I shall not concede to the fact that I will eventually turn evil and make claim to the Parliament of Australia because I, when in the role of "Marius", wish to take over Britannia.

At the very most basic concept, think of it thus;

WoD as cowboys and indians.

"You're not allowed to be an Indian, this is a Cowboy-only shard".

Fini.
Marius the Black
Oldbie
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2003 2:00 pm
Location: Tower of Scorn

Postby Homer on Sun Aug 17, 2003 9:46 am

I am certain that your heart and mind are in the right place, Marius. You shouldn't feel that my discussions here were directed narrowly in your direction. As I said earlier, we have had this same discussion here at least half-a-dozen times in the history of WoD. Many of your words trigger deja' vu sensations.
I don't strongly disagree with anything you said. At one point, you suggested that you have been harrassed outside of the game for things your character did IN the game. If that is the case, let's get it explicit and out in the open and taken care of. That is totally unacceptible.
As to our philosophical discussion of roleplaying, as is often the case, the use of the term "roleplay" is probably a barrier to communication like the word "ice" might be to penguins. We are talking about at least three different types of roleplaying with some similarities but also important differences.
The first type of roleplay is a projection exercise, such as is used in sensitivity, sales, or diversity training. In that type of roleplay, you "try on another person's point of view" to increase your understanding of it. This is the type of roleplay in which one looks to distance themselves from their own viewpoint- but only to a point. Empathy and understanding only occur if the roleplayer sees enough of his/her own personality within the assumed role to identify with it. If the assumed role is, or is believed to be totally alien, nothing is learned by attempting to assume it.
The second type of roleplay is like acting in a film or being a dungeonmaster. The role may be a major and important one, but it is transitory. The primary purpose and effect is external to the player- carrying a story line. "Believability" is the key mantra. An accomplished actor will attempt to understand the character and how it changes, but that is all means to the end of "believability" to the external viewer. A good actor will take pride in doing this with a wide range of roles, but he will also use language that indicates he must have an understanding and empathy with the character to do it well- he speaks of a role as a "stretch", indicating that there must be lines of connection between the personality of the actor and of the character portrayed. A performer might take a part as a dancing teapot or an alien from planet x, but such a portayal is not what we really mean when we speak of "acting" or "role playing." (although we don't have other good words for it, so we call it "roleplaying" and confuse each other).
Something different happens when you deal with the playing of a sustained role in a company of players over a period of time. This happens with actors when they do TV series and it happens with roleplayers who stay with the same character or characters for a period of time. When a new dramatic series (or sitcom) starts up, the characters are all single-dimensional and oversimplified with one major characteristic that the audience is hammered with to make sure they "get it." Over time, though, that character has to operate in a wide variety of circumstances. Details must be added (at least in the background) so that their behavior stays consistent in the long run. Real people are not cardboard cutouts with one behavior that defines their whole existence, but complex entities that sometimes behave in what appear to be contradictory manners. They accumulate a history that (if it is done right) add to the complexity and depth and reality of the character. This is the type of roleplay that is represented by sustaining a character in a roleplay community, and it is this type of situation which creates a merger of player and role and the need for empathy between player and character.
You said that a roleplayer does not necessarily play a character based on themselves or like themselves in any way. I must disagree. I can pretend to be a teacup, but I cannot roleplay a teacup, because I don't know the first thing about BEING a teacup. If I (or you) cannot find the basic building blocks of a character in ourselves, we are doing what I would call "pretending" and not what I call "roleplay"- particularly in this third category of that process.
Now, there is no law against "pretending" in WoD or anyplace else. Shoot, there is not even a law against impersonating a roleplayer (although perhaps there should be).
Now, I have never suggested that WoD is a "cowboys only" shard and that there are no Indians allowed. I have merely pointed out that people who try to play Indians tend to eventually regret it and are not as happy in the long run as those who create a new interesting way to portray a cowboy. Like every single one of the Indian-portrayers who have come before you, you dismiss this advice out of hand because these folks around here are idjits that don't understand roleplay like you do. You could easily be correct. Go for it.
Now, if you think you are the victim of persecution for trying to play and evil character, you should try being an Elf! Here is some more advice for you to ignore- don't be an Elf in WoD.
Homer
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2002 11:01 am
Location: Independence, Missouri

Postby Marius the Black on Sun Aug 17, 2003 10:49 am

I must say a lot of what you have said I agree with, even believe in myself. I agree with your definitions of role-play, because quintessentially, they recognise and assert themselves as a more wider range of options than previously mentioned. I also would like to extend my most sincere appreciation for presenting an argument with sound reason and logic - I would hardly like this to degenerate into a useless amount of name-calling and insulting. So, thank-you.

On to the topic at hand. Or, more specifically, the topic of interest.

I do not consider myself far above the people who play WoD. Nor are they, by any standards, comparatively inferior. In the World of Dreams, I have found no evidence to contradict this. I admire each and every individual for who they are, and what they have to offer. Almost.

You mentioned that you disagreed with the point that a role-player cannot play an established and long-lasting role without the basic material blocks of a character in 'ourselve's. I agree with the first part of this statement - A player with no military understanding cannot hope to role-play as a savvy War General, because he or she lacks the experience neccessary to do so. What I disagree with is the fact that this experience or these 'building blocks' must be inherent to the person. In the example above, the player could go and research military history, and come back educated, and ready for the role. Arguably, that said person might not be as good as someone who has experienced live combat, yet nor will they be clueless. When I base a character who portrays an evil alignment, I base them on what I have experienced. I do not mean horrendous evil from real-life events, but rather the "classical" evil so typified in many literature novels, television shows, and movies. When I say evil, I talk about the Darth Vaders and the Mr Burns, and so on. It is important here to disseminate the fiction from the reality. In playing a fictional villian, I base it from fictional understanding. For I do not enact such practices in reality.

Thus, it is possible for me to play an 'evil' role, by drawing upon not what is inherent to me, but rather, what I have learned from experience. If this is what you mean, I have interpreted it wrong, I invite you to correct me. However, I think the major difference between our two opinions is whether the characters' 'personality' is "inherited" [from the players' own persona] or "learned" [developed from knowledge] - when applied to behaviour real life, this debate is as major as the classic; religion vs. science.

I have never tried to establish my position as the solely correct answer. There are as many types of interpretations as there are people, and none are exactly right. Such is the enjoyment of life. Even now, my own opinions have grown and changed, thanks to this healthy debate.

What is important is to remember that some people want to play the Indians. While it might not have been you that said this is a "Cowboys only" shard, it is more than certain (through discussions with others) that there is a severe tendancy for people who do something outside the norm to be 'encouraged' to follow suit. I do not immediately accuse anyone of doing so, and nor would I - but the fact remains that there are stories of people being forced to play what the 'community' would prefer, rather than the individual. In some ways, this is good.

It is unreasonable to put limitations on peoples' creative expression without forewarning them first. Even then, it would have to be justifiable and in any case, the rules would be established to counter-act poor common sense.

You mentioned that people have a poor time playing 'Indians'. I think this is because of the stigma of the community upon 'Indians'. Were noone to care that people were playing them, I am sure we would see a lot more of them. No one wants to play something that will undoubtedly have them ostracised from the group. But the abuse and the lack of respect that comes with moving out of the communities 'safety net' is rather upsetting. For WoD to grow and change, it has to be allowed to grow and to change. While many people will argue fiercely that this shouldn't happen - what would happen if Drocket stopped scripting? Everything, eventually, would collapse.

The ideal society is one that learns and grows. If a society doesn't grow, it breaks apart. WoD is a virtual community, a society within a game. I don't feel that playing a part of the community that otherwise has been turned a 'blind eye' accords me any special accolade or priveledge, but nor should it accrue any mistrust.

Homer, I admired your closing statement. I think I'll have to snoop around the Forums and see if I can find any threads on 'Elves', just to see what the joke really means. :P

-M
Marius the Black
Oldbie
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2003 2:00 pm
Location: Tower of Scorn

Postby Chelsea Duklain on Sun Aug 17, 2003 3:15 pm

Bottom line.

Some of us role play.

Some of us don't.

The role players can't make the non-role players play anymore than the non-role players can make the role players not play. Get that?

A group of assembled role players would not divide up the shard. It would only put into perspective who wishes to role play their characters and who doesn't.


When in character, I certainly don't want to sit around the Brit bank and listen to someone discuss how their car isn't running correctly. It sorta ruins the mood.

Then again, when I wish to ask questions about the game to a general audience, I don't want people giving me blank looks and asking "Forum boards? what are those?"


I think it's wonderful that people out there play the game in order to provide others entertainment. I'm not that unselfish. I play the game for my own entertainment and if anyone else has fun with me...Boooyah! Bonus! We are human beings with mortal tendancies, you can't expect us all to be the Mother Theresa's of the UO world.

In short.

There ARE people who don't role play here. Deal with it. They don't want to get "in-character", they don't comprehend, nor want to, a character rather than a player. Adjust accordingly. Be polite. This isn't your shard and your shard alone.

Then again,

There ARE people who role play here. Learn to accept it, deal with it, and try to understand that a person's character isn't really them. If Chelsea says something abrasive to someone in character and that player hates my guts for the next six
weeks...oh...well. I certainly wouldn't want someone getting upset with me but my character is an abrasive woman who speaks first, thinks later. But if you think I'm going to sit around the real world obsessing that someone on UO doesn't like my character, you are sadly, sadly mistaken.


There are two breeds here and I don't think either are going to budge. Might as well get out the peacepipe and settle in! :D
Chelsea Duklain
Jr. Regular Poster
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 3:42 am
Location: The beautiful suburbs of Moonglow

Postby Azzo Ranar on Sun Aug 17, 2003 3:27 pm

Spark it up!
Azzo Ranar
Jr. Oldbie
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 12:15 pm

Postby Marius the Black on Sun Aug 17, 2003 6:49 pm

Sounds good to me.

I recieved this list from someone via PM. It's a good read.

http://www.worldofdreams.org/forums/forum_browser.pl?forum=14&topic=001489&startrec=30

Thanks, Chelsea. As always, you make perfect sense. :wink:

-M
Marius the Black
Oldbie
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2003 2:00 pm
Location: Tower of Scorn

Postby Ehran on Tue Aug 19, 2003 2:15 am

the warm fuzzies are getting entirely out of hand here folks. nary a flame to be seen page after page. naught but sweet reasonableness and a general air of empathy for the other side. These are the message boards where you get to VENT without mortal injury to one another.

some days i really miss dirk and antimony's pithy comments :lol:
Ehran
Sr. Oldbie
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 5:54 am
Location: Just east of Vancouver BC

same

Postby Dell-Leafsong on Tue Aug 19, 2003 2:39 am

Ehran wrote:the warm fuzzies are getting entirely out of hand here folks. nary a flame to be seen page after page. naught but sweet reasonableness and a general air of empathy for the other side. These are the message boards where you get to VENT without mortal injury to one another....


I have to commend the combattants on this battle. Touches were scored on all sides and no blood drawn. Well done gentlemen.
Dell-Leafsong
Sr. Regular Poster
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 8:42 pm
Location: Central Texas, USA

Postby Augur Wildwood on Wed Aug 20, 2003 3:18 am

First off, my apologies for being totally absent from a discussion I helped turn in this direction. I was "Out Sick." I have a recurring knee problem that just gets worse unless I keep my leg unbent and horizontal until it goes away. This makes it painful and unhelpful to my recovery to sit at my computer. Plus, to be honest, I was feeling fed up with certain in-game things and so I took the last week off, with the knee propped up, reading books.

Now, I did read all of the replies and agree that most were well thought-out. However some were quite lengthy, so forgive me if my attention wandered from time to time and I don't respond comprehensively to all the points raised.

As to the whole RPing issue, let me say that I don't have anything against roleplaying and it was never my intent to discourage anyone from doing so. I actually enjoyed much of Marius' RPing (although some of it got a bit lengthy at times too) and I have enjoyed the RPing of many others here before. I have just had bad experiences with "Evil" RPers and that is more or less what I said.

So, let's get down to it. I posted the way I did because I was disgusted with the actions of the player behind Marius, not the character. I did not make specific accusations because much of my information was second-hand and I do not like to spread gossip. But some of that information was backed up by first-hand observations.

Specifically, I believe Marius broke a couple (and likely several) of the rules of the Upstarts group shortly after he joined and then lied about it. To be clear, these were the rules of a player-formed group and not WoD rules. However, the Upstarts functions on the Honor system and we all felt abused by his actions. I don't think Marius was the only one who cheated a bit here and there either. He was simply the most blatent and, from what I heard, dishonest about it.

It was demoralizing and the proximate cause for our buying our own house so we could control access to our communal possessions.

And I have seen it happen where an "evil" character decides to bend the rules (possibly to be "in character", I don't know) so many times that I no longer trust such people.

There are exceptions. There have been players who had some good characters and some bad characters and we came to know they were good players because of the mix of their actions on those various characters. So far as I know, Marius was just Marius. If he has/had any other characters prior to creating Janus I never knew about them, so that was all I had to go on in his case. As it happens, I saw Janus leaving the Upstarts tower just as I was logging on a day after he quit as Marius. I asked around and no one said that Janus had joined the Upstarts, so I am suspicious of Janus too. Now, to be fair, Marius did have a lot of books at the tower and Janus may just have been picking them up. As I said, I was just feeling abused and suspicious. Janus did return some of the things that Marius was given by the Upstarts but had to be asked first to do it... and why didn't Marius do that when he quit? Why did Janus have the things? The whole thing just left a really sour taste in my mouth.

So, based upon what I knew myself and what others told me that backed that up, added to it, and reinforced it substantially, I posted that I would not like to hunt with Marius.

So, again, sorry I wasn't more specific and that I let this hang for so long without replying, but that's what was really going on with me.

Great discussion about RPing though. As was said, a lot of good points all around. So I am also sorry to deflect the whole thing again by belatedly revealing that it was in fact a personal attack on the player who plays Marius. After all the energy that has gone into this discussion, however, I couldn't see just leaving it there with the initial poor impression and lack of good information I gave you all. I hope this helps clear things up a bit.

-Augur
Augur Wildwood
Sr. Regular Poster
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 8:37 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA

Postby Marius the Black on Wed Aug 20, 2003 5:47 am

Augur,

I'm sorry if I offended you or somehow upset the Upstarts in some way. That was never my intention. I put a lot of hard work into Marius, after deleting the old one (because of the no double name thingy), but all I was met with was speculation and scorn. I never set out to harm anyone, or cheat or steal.

I'd like to clarify a few things;

Janus was taking the books back, simply because I was working on copies (and required the originals) but I had forgot they were still at the tower. I had kept the items Marius had been given, for return to the guild, but I hadn't got around to returning them yet.

In any case, I sincerely apologise for my brief and unsettling time at the Upstarts, and for upsetting anyone that I did. I wouldn't ever justify the mistakes I made as 'in-character role-play', and I hope that I can eventually be forgiven.

Things like this aren't progressive for the community and if there is any way that I can make it up to you, Augur, and any of the other Upstarts that feel the same way as you do, please tell me. As it is, I'd be happy to oblige you all, and remove this stain from my name - it would be the least I can do.

-M
Marius the Black
Oldbie
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2003 2:00 pm
Location: Tower of Scorn

Postby Azzo Ranar on Wed Aug 20, 2003 2:30 pm

That pretty much covered it. Nuff said.
Azzo Ranar
Jr. Oldbie
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 12:15 pm

Previous

Return to Quest Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron