I am actually COMPLETELY with Claris on this one. Everyone is entitled to find the RP they find most enjoyable, and it sounds like Claris' group handled it responsibly. IN a high-octane, action-packed rp scenario like the one described, you simply cannot expect the greater community to get involved on that, so you keep it to your group. What's the harm in that?
Furthermore, I'd say Ildur's example of the bruise and battered person is essentially the same thing. You are introducing a disruptive element that frankly, not everyone is going to want to get involved with. And why would they? They don't know the character. Sure they might report it to the local (conjurer/healer/priest/doctor), but what else are they supposed to do? Especially in tavern roleplays were brawls and bloodying people up are kind of common.
Multiple universes make for peaceful coexistence. If everyone compromises for some sort of community wide, baseline, 'acceptable' RP... nobody wins. Because you have to play everything safe, remove any experimental elements, and force people into arguments. As an example, how do you handle frequent dungeon runs? I've heard several viable, and interesting ways to address this. But you CANNOT force ONE way on everyone, because people are bound to disagree. Let people find what works best of them, and go with it. It's okay if we employ different methods, so long as we support our differences, not nitpick over them.Â
I had a situation where a character claiming to be a high-ranking official of the Maelstrom, caused a scene at the Bismarck trying to arrest someone. The only problem was, no one recognized her authority as Maelstrom, and when they didn't go along with the scene, the player resorted to ((OOC namecalling)). That player has EVERY right to roleplay a high-ranking Maelstrom authority, in HER universe. But you cannot force that sort of thing on the greater community, because what's to stop me from playing a higher ranking official who then fires her? You have to find a group of people who accept that role.
As another example, I got in a debate with a guildie on how Raise should be handled in game. I strongly dislike removing the consequence of death from my RP. I roleplay like Raise is bringing someone back from the brink of death. My guildie did not see it this way. Raise, by definition, is bringing someone back from the dead. We were both right, and neither of us was wrong. It all comes down to taste and preference, and we should encourage and tolerate our fellow rpers for pursuing what meets their unique wishes.
Bottom line is, you can choose to play within the safer, community wide rules and work well within the guidelines, thereby opening yourself up to a broader spectrum of rp. Or, you can do your own thing because you recognize its not something the greater community will agree upon. Both are valid. Both are fun. And both should be encouraged as growing the artform that is RP.
Furthermore, I'd say Ildur's example of the bruise and battered person is essentially the same thing. You are introducing a disruptive element that frankly, not everyone is going to want to get involved with. And why would they? They don't know the character. Sure they might report it to the local (conjurer/healer/priest/doctor), but what else are they supposed to do? Especially in tavern roleplays were brawls and bloodying people up are kind of common.
Multiple universes make for peaceful coexistence. If everyone compromises for some sort of community wide, baseline, 'acceptable' RP... nobody wins. Because you have to play everything safe, remove any experimental elements, and force people into arguments. As an example, how do you handle frequent dungeon runs? I've heard several viable, and interesting ways to address this. But you CANNOT force ONE way on everyone, because people are bound to disagree. Let people find what works best of them, and go with it. It's okay if we employ different methods, so long as we support our differences, not nitpick over them.Â
I had a situation where a character claiming to be a high-ranking official of the Maelstrom, caused a scene at the Bismarck trying to arrest someone. The only problem was, no one recognized her authority as Maelstrom, and when they didn't go along with the scene, the player resorted to ((OOC namecalling)). That player has EVERY right to roleplay a high-ranking Maelstrom authority, in HER universe. But you cannot force that sort of thing on the greater community, because what's to stop me from playing a higher ranking official who then fires her? You have to find a group of people who accept that role.
As another example, I got in a debate with a guildie on how Raise should be handled in game. I strongly dislike removing the consequence of death from my RP. I roleplay like Raise is bringing someone back from the brink of death. My guildie did not see it this way. Raise, by definition, is bringing someone back from the dead. We were both right, and neither of us was wrong. It all comes down to taste and preference, and we should encourage and tolerate our fellow rpers for pursuing what meets their unique wishes.
Bottom line is, you can choose to play within the safer, community wide rules and work well within the guidelines, thereby opening yourself up to a broader spectrum of rp. Or, you can do your own thing because you recognize its not something the greater community will agree upon. Both are valid. Both are fun. And both should be encouraged as growing the artform that is RP.
