How do people view the fighting on the Carteneau Flats?

[LiveVoltage]

This is generally a question I haven't seen asked by anyone yet so here it goes.

 

Out of all the people I have RPed with so far on Balmung, people tend to have two views on the matters regarding the battle's on the carteneau Flats.

 

1: They follow what the game tells them and that it is simply is fighters subduing each other in combat...

 

or

 

2: Killing between the Three Grand company on the flat's is a thing but they do not call it an outright war and that only the foreign fighters divisions of each respective company are put out there to fight.

 

I think its a very interesting concept to explore as to find where everyone stands on this.

[Berrod Armstrong]

Given that the battle system on the Carteneau flats is a measure to settle a conflict with civility, I believe it goes more along the lines of subduing in combat. The Grand companies want to AVOID breaking out in a situation that would have their members kill each other.

[Warren Castille]

I imagined it more like war games. It's base control, a strict time limit, etc. I think when we're KO'd it's just us going "Alright, damn, got me. Going back to base."

 

I'm probably wrong, though.

[Chika Ito]

I go with subduing honestly. Any time I role play out PvP matches at the end I say that the amount of deaths I get are how many times my character was knocked out.

[LiveVoltage]

They use the terms for beating an enemy or being beaten by an enemy as kills or deaths. Therefore, there is the argument that the game mechanics itself say that killing and stuff goes on out on the flat's.

 

Just an interesting fact to point out.

[Warren Castille]

They use the terms for beating an enemy or being beaten by an enemy as kills or deaths. Therefore, there is the argument that the game mechanics itself say that killing and stuff goes on out on the flat's.

 

Just an interesting fact to point out.

 

There's a call for separation of gameplay and story, though. K/D is a known thing in competitive gaming going back to the stone age.

[Hiro]

A kill/death system is also something used in simulations as well so even if the game is telling us this it's also very reasonable to assume they're just treating it as a simulation of: You would have Killed X enemies and Died Y times.

[LiveVoltage]

Understandable. Its just alot of RPers that I have meet seem to lean over to the killing aspect more than the subduing idea, granted their is one group of people that I RP with, and they say that subduing is a cannon thing for the majority of them.

[Verad]

There's an allure to saying your opponents have been killed rather than subdued; it provides a very definitive, concrete sense of personal prowess to the character in the minds of some players. In a game like WoW, where the factions are at best opposed and at worst outright hostile, I can see it being plausible.

 

In FF14 specifically, I see it as being a subduing thing. The city-states, even outside of an alliance, are generally friendly enough that severe bloodshed seems unlikely, at least for the moment.

[Marisa]

It's definitely just war games, although I do wish we could get some more serious conflict going. All of this peace and cooperation makes for a really dull story.

[FreelanceWizard]

One tidbit I'd add is that it doesn't appear that you can Cure souls on Hydaelyn; once you're dead, your Aether returns to the lifestream (or doesn't, and you become a revenant), and you're dead dead -- game over, insert coins, do not pass Go, etc. Admittedly, those of strong spiritual fortitude can slingshot back to a nearby Aetheryte, but not all PCs are RPed as such.

 

So, while you can probably justify seriously mangling people in Frontlines, since magical healing can patch them back up, outright killing people is probably a no-no, IMO.

 

Also, as others noted, combat games such as lasertag, paintball, foam weapon fighting, etc. refer to disabling someone per the rules of the game as a "kill" and your being disabled as a "death." So, I wouldn't read too much into the terminology, personally. Frontlines are a war game, after all, not a killing field.

[Titor]

I would say with some confidence that you are NOT to kill the opposing faction. 

First off, in the quest it explicitly said that the goal was to subdue and to NOT kill.

 

Secondly, if you watch the intro cutscene to Carteneau Flats, the three grand companies are preparing. The NPCs are WAY WAY WAY too happy and excited if they were about to run forward to potentially their deaths. They were really behaving like a group of people before paintball or what not. 

 

 

Here is the dialogue (From XIVDB, but I do remember this being correct in game Source)

Mimio:

Oh, but do not misunderstand! We won't be going to war with our allies. Hostilities shall be confined to the disputed territories, and we shall fight to submission, not death. So there is no cause for concern, oh no. You won't be expected to kill your opponent─merely deprive him of the will to fight.

 

 

Gishitaihikuuei: Ah, but that look on your face bespeaks confusion. “Are we at war or not? What is this bollocks about no killing? What in the seven hells is going on!?” That's what you're thinking, yes?

It's less “war” and more “organized violence to resolve a territorial dispute.” And yes, it is to be civilized violence. Killing Alliance members is strictly prohibited─though accidents have been known to happen, mind you.But you of all people have nothing to fear! You've escaped certain death more times than I can count; what are the odds you'll fail to do so this time, eh?"

 

 

I think this is very very clear that you are not to kill, and killing is very prohibited and frowned upon, am not sure how you would bend this very explicitly clear dialogue to say that you are explicitly killing on Carteneau.

[LiveVoltage]

Well to be honest, the player (you) might not kill, but other people who fight might.

 

Generally, I just tend to go with whatever the person im RPing with considers cannon lore.

 

I think the idea was just to make it clear. Obviously, alot of people a few groups of people on the RPC are going to might get up in arm's about lore but I dont really care for it if it gives me a good story to play with.

 

A few things I noticed however is you said 'accident'. That still means that there ARE people who die, be it through injury by their opponent or a injury that results from an unfortunate mishap, such as falling off a cliff and falling to youre death. Casualties are still casualties regardless of how they come about on the battlefield and someone will be held responsible. By all rights, this would still be considered and unofficial war, even if they arent murdering or killing each other on the field or are not intentionally trying too.

[Oscare]

I remember reading an article somewhere in the Lore boards that whenever you die in an instance (not just Frontlines, but ANYTHING at all, even Turn 9 and all the primal battles) you don't actually 'die', per say. The lore is finicky on what it defines death as (a whole quest in the most recent storyline is dedicated to explaining Aether and Death). They explain that when you die in an instance, your aether... 'resets', for a lack of a better word. It's transported to the closest and safest location, where they can try to fight again. Death is when the aether can NOT be restored and the individual takes a fatal blow. This was their excuse to make sure that adventurer's don't just fall flat on their face and die because someone poked them with a stick that happened to do exactly enough 'HP' to kill them.

 

Hydaelyn, yo. She's got ur bak bros

 

(I shall try to find the source of this, so take this with a healthy grain of salt. I also concur that Frontlines is treated as more of a war game between the factions to measure dominance rather than a war to spill blood.)

[Dravus]

If I recall correctly there's quest text implying that although the majority of combatants are simply beaten back and knocked out there are occasionally deaths here and there. Which makes a lot of sense - if you're going to be attacking people with all sorts of different spells and weapons then there's a real chance that even being cautious can lead to disaster.

[Aduu Avagnar]

Just as there are deaths and sever injuries in military training and war games, I simply view it as being rare.

[Titor]

I think the idea was just to make it clear. Obviously, alot of people a few groups of people on the RPC are going to might get up in arm's about lore but I dont really care for it if it gives me a good story to play with.

Waitwaitwait. Is this the same person who was giving me a hard time the a few weeks ago in-game for saying that I like to bend lore as long as all parties agree? *cough* ok *cough*

 

 

Aannnnnyyywayyy. I think it would be frowned on with severe repercussions, the GCs do not want to start an all out war with each other especially with so many threats around.

[Kage]

Just as there are deaths and sever injuries in military training and war games, I simply view it as being rare.

I'm imagining the starship troopers excerise when someone gets their head blown up *nod*

[Chika Ito]

So are you saying, if you and I ever went up against each other in Frontlines, and I took you down you would consider your character dead?

 

Personally I cannot kill someone's character without their permission. A lot of people in role play communities have that 'don't kill my character without my consent' rule. It's pretty much agreed upon by a good majority of role players. It isn't right, nor justified, to out right say you killed someone's character without giving them the proper chance, or the ability, to say 'hey I don't agree with this happening'. Outright killing someone's character, without the other person having a consent, that is God Modding.

 

If your character enjoys killing someone have you possibly considered asking a friend, or two, to make a throw away character? It's not the same, obviously, but in the end no one will be hurt, or pissed, that you just wasted months worth of their time/work/effort/energy.

 

The quest explains accidents happen. Accidents, not out right 'yea we slay people'. It's more like 'no we try to subdue them, but sometimes things get a little out of hand and mistakes happen'. So it isn't a constant blood bath.

[LiveVoltage]

Titor bro, its me, Inessa. I haven't even been around the forum for at least a month so I dont know who youre talking about.

 

As for the death concept, whatever floats youre boat's guys. I follow the concept of "you only live once." so if you die, you die. There is no atheric displacement. You dont get a second chance.    :I

 

Though I find this thread to have been a good talk. Lot's of way's too look at the frontline battle's now instead of thinking about it as unnofical warfare. Thanks everyone.

 

((You guys can continue to talk about this if you want. I found what I wanted to know.))

[Titor]

Titor bro, its me, Inessa. I haven't even been around the forum for at least a month so I dont know who youre talking about.

 

As for the death concept, whatever floats youre boat's guys. I follow the concept of "you only live once." so if you die, you die. There is no atheric displacement. You dont get a second chance.    :I

 

Though I find this thread to have been a good talk. Lot's of way's too look at the frontline battle's now instead of thinking about it as unnofical warfare. Thanks everyone.

 

((You guys can continue to talk about this if you want. I found what I wanted to know.))

 

1) I said that conversation happened 'in-game'

2) This happened literally a month ago

3) So like, why did you ask this question or opinions if you were stuck on your own idea of what happens?

4) Most in here said it is not perma-death, yet you still are stuck on your opinion that it is perma-death. There is no evidence suggesting that it is meant to be perma-death

5) You are basically just stating that there are different ways to look at it when it seems that both the in-game lore and the general consensus is that it is like a game with the possibility of accidental death?

6) 'k.

[Marisa]

Just as there are deaths and sever injuries in military training and war games, I simply view it as being rare.

I'm imagining the starship troopers excerise when someone gets their head blown up *nod*

One of my all-time favorite movies. 

 

"MEDIC!!!"

Uh... you realize his head got blown off, right?

[Seriphyn]

The Frontlines NPCs at the airship landings outright say killing is not allowed on the battlefield, "but accidents can happen"

[Leomoon]

I don;t think anyone is ever killed there more K.Oed in the arenas.

[Kellach Woods]

The Frontlines NPCs at the airship landings outright say killing is not allowed on the battlefield, "but accidents can happen"

This begs more interesting questions!

 

1) Would there be an investigation if someone was killed on the flats?

2) Would the person who has a confirmed actual kill on the flats be blamed? Rewarded?

3) How do you determine what was an accident and what was intentional?