WickedWitch wrote:
I don't know, but I got the pretty distinct impression from this thread that apparently the "proper" way to "RP" enmity is to ZOMG KILL KILL KILL or to ZOMG AN ELF/DELF, I CAN'T STAY HERE.
I don't think that's what anyone was implying in this thread, perhaps you are thinking of discussions that have taken place elsewhere?
Liri wrote:
The analogy of green beans implies that: Any time you see a deep-elf you should respond as if that particular deep-elf killed your entire family.
That wasn't the point of my analogy, I obviously should have been more clear. Obviously Johnny doesn't think that each bean he comes across is the one that killed his parents. The point of the analogy was that enmity isn't something an elf or deep-elf can simply "overcome". It's irreversible.
Liri wrote:
How else are you going to respond to that, except by fleeing their presence in every situation, closing your mind to them every time they try to speak to you, or killing them?
If there's only one flavour of enmity, and it's always the most virulent, as is implied and outright stated in this thread, then there can BE no interaction between elf and deep-elf other than one ending in death.
I gave plenty of examples of how one could RP out enmity non-violently and without leaving. It should never be a comfortable or easy situation though. That's the wonderful challenge of playing one of these races.
Liri wrote:
The comment about needing to "witness" the enmity is also a valid point. Other people don't often see roleplay that is confined to tells. It's much easier to applaud someone for killing a deep-elf than to consider a much longer term roleplay that is not so blatantly obvious.
I've restrained myself from commenting on the "hidden roleplay" defense. Really, it is a poor one. This is a game that hinges on involving people in the storyline of your character. There should always be hints available to those around you so they understand that there's more going on behind the scenes than just a player sitting AFK in an inn. But really, this is a different thread all together.
Liri wrote:
In a world where there are thoughtful and rational minotaurs, well-spoken and intellectual giants, and half-elves accepted in both elven and human society, I think it's a little strange to single out elves and deep-elves as creatures who have no ability to rise above their own natures, even temporarily, even over something as important and basic as religion. I accept that this is the case, however.
In SK there are certain standards that are set out in the helpfiles that we must adhere to. There are specific ways in which different alignments are expected to act. There are specific ideologies that are adhered to by certain classes, cabals and tribunals. And there are certain expectations of races such as elves and deep-elves. If we ignore these standards, then we would lose the unique culture that sets SK out from other games. I liken enmity to traits such as size. If a player was to roll a sprite and then describe him or herself as 5 feet tall, we would all think it was ridiculous. Think of all the guff paladins get when they "play out of their alignment". It is the same thing.
Thankfully, I'm not an immortal and I do not have to police these types of things. So, my opinion matters no more than any one else in this thread. This is how I interpret the helpfiles and how I hope to see the game played. The reason I play SK is because of the rich culture it has. I dislike the idea of elves and deep-elves being played the same as one would play a human or a half-elf. It seems to be a discredit to their unique heritages.
EDIT: I just reread this entire thread and everyone who posted in support of a more strict view of enmity specifically said in their posts that they didn't mean that enmity had to lead to death. So, those of you are bringing it up are sidetracking the conversation.