Shattered Kingdoms

Just going to step in to say if anyone thinks there is IMM bias in favor of the Harlequins, they're crazy.

I agree on this. But there's also no bias against them either.

That's not what I was saying. I wasn't talking about favoritism. I was talking about being misinformed and only getting part of the story. Does that clarification make sense to you?

The harlies stomped out. Hard. It's undeniable. I tip my hat. Acknowledgment where acknowledgment is earned.

I'll comment not because I'm involved in this, but because I've seen another MUD's war going too far. Truce agreements are often overrated. A few people that go overboard can be punished, but that fails when the general population is involved.

Keep in mind, the winning side isn't making outrageous demands because they expect them to happen, but because they want to keep fighting. How happy are they going to be with a forced truce? And often, some members on the weaker side want to keep fighting regardless. Someone's going to find an excuse to restart the war. We aren't going to police roleplay enough to stop that, and SK wouldn't be the same if we did.

When players feel harassed by conflict, a better solution is to limit the damage PCs can do. That people won't RP devastation at being killed is an example of limiting damage. As in, no, I'm not going to change how my character interacts because of someone's easy kill. This can be taken too far, but I regard it as healthy. If you want to achieve RP objectives, you should have to participate in meaningful RP as well as PK. It's the obligation of the winning faction to turn that PK success into an RP victory; the losing faction should retain veto power.

If there's going to be any change to rules, I suggest helping weak factions, so they can roleplay conflict without constant direct combat. For example, CRS is here to stay, but there could be a bonus for winning instead of a penalty for losing.

Well I've been gone a while, but there were short term benefits for successfully defending your relic. Slayne and 1 of my characters used to go at it. Often it was Mika versus the MC. When she'd win the defense, the hammer would receive a bonus for the defense. Are you suggesting something greater?

As zelenik just said, there IS a bonus for successfully defending or attacking (assuming you aren't ninja ganking) and has been for ages.

Not sure if you were referring to imm or players policing a truce but as a leader if one of my ppl breaks a truce that hurts my faction they're out and I'd attempt to fix the truce.

Objective, static alignment might just be one of the contributing factors to a systemic disregard for others observed in some characters. How violence and death are treated by systems often seems correlated with how theses systems treat morality and personhood.

That there's a benefit for succeeding in PK, doesn't much help groups so weak that they struggle with PK. I was thinking more of cabals not losing powers because of a relic loss. Such a change could mean a successful raid needs more positive benefits. But I admit I'm out-of-date on CRS mechanics. That's why I'm trying to stick to generalities.



The MUD with major war problems didn't have an alignment system, so it's hard to blame static alignment for this. It's true that static alignment encourages confrontation more than diplomacy, but that's not a bad thing in an RP/PK game. The goal isn't peace, but helping players have fun even when their faction is ICly unsuccessful.