It's been a while since the last controversial zapping, so I think it's safe to hope that this thread will not become a forum for complaining or whinging about the behaviour of the gods. I very much want this to be constructive.

(N.B. This is not a spoof post.)

Introduction.

In many ways the Gods here are in a rather difficult position. In order to preserve a consistent and credible sense of who they are and what they are, they have to stamp on mortals who forget their place. None of us are going to take (for example) Morg or Fain or Terentia seriously if a player can shout some offensive quasi-witticism at them and not get zapped.

but

This has a corresponding dampening effect on roleplay. Lusternia is a game in which the four organisations are set against each other (generally) in shifting alliances of 2 v 2. Over and above that, there are sets of organisationally-based Divinities who have their own squabbles and hatreds. Currently, it is extremely hard for mortals to interact with divinities who are diometrically opposed to the interests of their organisation. It is very unwise for Aiakon to insult or oppose Terentia, because he ends up painfully dead. And, mutatis mutandis, the same applies everywhere else. Order warfare consists of killing enemy order members, defiling shrines, and that is it. It's terrifically dull.

You may or may not agree with the above assessment. There are -obviously- exceptions. Aiakon wrote an offensive book about Elostian - Elostian favoured him.. an action which seems wholly consonant with his (El's) RP (a zap would not have been), and which achieved the same effect: It firmly put Aiakon in his place. It said, "You are so far beneath me, mortal, that your insults are of absolutely no consequence... have a favour and keep trying."

In any case, here follow a series of suggestions:

Suggestions.

(1) Diminish the effect of the full zap. A praying death is bad enough, but adding in the intensely painful cost of losing mana when you have none, and you're talking a huge % of exp lost. Frankly, it's too much. It makes the point that a God wants to make and then some. It sticks the knife in and twists. It makes damn sure you won't take that risk again: it makes Lusternia bland.

In the face of a mortal insult, I can absolutely understand the rationale of using the most powerful weapon in your armoury. RPly, this makes perfect sense. I'm not suggesting that the Gods start sending out warning zaps - obviously that's a ridiculous notion. But how about reserving the really nasty zaps for Oneiroi/OOC/Administrative punishments.. and making RP zaps slightly less unpleasant. A praying instakill - fine. But leave us enough mana to get back from the Fates more or less intact.

(2) Instigate a form of divine favour whereby an order member is protected from the hostile actions of other Divine. Add an extra message to the normal zap motif, perhaps customised for each relevant god:

e.g (rather lamely)
A precise lance of scorching blue flame shoots across the heavens, but as it nears the ground a ruddy light envelops and negates it.

However, if, with the Full backing of His God, Aiakon could respond to Terentia without being raped for exp, that would be nice. Now, I can imagine the Divine tutting over this.. after all, it's placing a little too much trust in the mortal..

Obviously, if a mortal does something slightly retarded (like, for example, the public post which Aiakon made shortly after Charune ordered all of mortality to run up to the Astral Plane to fight tentacles, while apparently showing absolutely no inclination to join in) then the slighted God should have some ability to circumvent the protection - perhaps at a higher essence cost, and with great bombastic plane messages. Alternately, the patron God could just remove the protection in disgust and punish the wrong-doer himself. Presumably the Gods can be trusted to be mature about it, even if the players can't.

(3) The skill effects of truedisfavours -desperately- need nerfing. Currently, when someone gets their skills nerfed, they tend to simply quit until the disfavour ends... and I can think of several examples, including myself. That does -not- help RP. It's absolutely great for an Admin punishment.. but it's utterly counterproductive in a roleplay situation.

Like the nastiest zap, a truedisfavour which nerfs all skills seems to me like a hangover from the days in IRE when a God's IC and OOC function was partially combined. I seem to remember there being, somewhere in this forum, a note from Estarra to the effect that she had deliberately created the Oneiroi etc so that the God's IC and the Godplayer's Admin roles would be entirely separate. By all means keep a skillnerfing truedisfavour for the admin role... but I really don't think it's effective for RP, especially when (as I've said) it ends in players buggering off for the duration.

I don't even necessarily think that a complete nerf is in order. Losing the utility in one or two skills is fine... but losing the utility in all the useful ones isn't. I've been in a situation in which I lost conglutination, lost all the useful forging skills, lost too many of my useful fighting skills, and lost my invaluable bashing skills (no surge, no lich). I couldn't repel raids, because without lich or conglut I'd have to pray (as it happens, I logged on in a raid, forgot I was truedisfavoured and promptly suffered that very indignity); I couldn't bash.. or at least not efficiently enough to make it worth my while; and I couldn't even forge. All that was left was bored RP at the Megalith and library book writing. That wasn't enough for me, so I gave Lusty a rest for three days - which was pointless.. and a waste of a situation out of which something could have been made.

Anyway. I'm sure I have more points to make - this post has been largely ad hoc.. and not very seriously thought through. I will also, I imagine, be editing in corrections to my spelling/punctuation/style/points for the next ten minutes or so.

I really don't mind how it is now honestly. I've talked to an opposing divine on a few different occasions and avoided the level of disrespect where they need to in order to maintain their credibility. I guess it comes down to how we feel we need to interact with them.

Your ideas aren't bad though :shrug:.

EDIT: I really wish we had a shrugging emoticon already.

Bad for RP as you call it is not a person angering the gods and being punished. It is someone who does exactly what you state. "Oh I got a TDF, I will log off until it goes away, and it doesn't mean anything anymore." If you want to anger the Divine face the consequences, if you think it is bad roleplay to be logging off when you have a TDF, then the onus is on you not to log off, not on us to stop giving TDF's.

It seems like you didn't understand the main point of his post at all, Aiakon makes a lot of sense here, if you need to ask any questions or need help understanding it you should just ask.

I'd agree with you on the tdf part definatly Aiakon. Good roleplay can land you in a situation where your encouraged not to play the game.

One of the biggest threats to survival any MUD has is keeping its Gods active. Beyond the facilitation of RP they are the engine driving improvements and change. Without those you don't keep players or attract new ones.
Its hard enough being a God. If you want to be rude to them in public then I think you deserve to be cindered.
There are plenty of ways to disagree with a God without resorting to some of the (all too regular) extrememly disrespectful and blatantly rude behaviour on open channels.
While I personally think at least one of the current divines is a complete knob, my character wouldn't be stupid enough to go around proclaiming that in public - he'd expect to be cindered.
There should be a wide gap between players and gods.
When a God crosses the line between good RP and power abuse there are already mechanisms for that to be reported and dealt with.

I am well aware of his point and his reasoning. It seems you missed mine completely. If you have issues understanding it I would be happy to explain. Pissing off the Divine is not good. Do so at your own risk. If you don't like the consequences of pissing off the Divine. don't piss off the Divine. There is more than enough people in the game that feel they can say or do whatever they want to the Divine then when they get slapped for it they come to the forum and complain that the Divine ruin their game play by punishing them for their own stupidity.

Just have TDF's and well all favors last like karma then, online time only. (I think the range of times would need to be changed as well if that was implimented though.) That way logging off wouldn't help the situation.

Uh...although being AFK is against the rules, that change would just increase its practice.

I was going to suggest the same, actually. Inevitably, there will be players in any game who feel they're above "the system" and can/should be able to get away with murder. They cite RP justification for acting like twits to gods, but invariably cry foul when they're (justly) reduced to a pile of ash/a lowly maggot/a leafy shrub. If disfavour lengths were calculated in time spent online, it would not only reduce the relevance of the "It's not good ar-pee" complaint, but (in theory) the likelihood that someone will annoy a god and laugh it off.

As far as being AFK goes- If people are doing it, and know it contradicts existing policy, then frankly they deserve whatever they get. I remember several occasions in Achaea over the years in which AFK players have whined about dying, demanding restitution of some sort, and gotten punished instead on top of the experience loss. If being AFK becomes more popular, so will hunting the offenders, in my opinion.

It's "dunno."

I kinda see what he's saying though. If you worship a god who HATES another god, don't you think your own god would give you a level of protection against the other? (Essence costs perhaps?)

I think (dis)favours and zappings come with interacting with a God.
There are other creative responses, though I think they take some extra coding. To stop Kalodan while he was shouting/singing the honeycake song, Lady Viravain had a honeycake rammed down his throat.

They can, if they choose to Favor you to counteract a Disfavor, and I even remember Fain and Haja used to do that back in the day when their followers got into wars over dusting shrines. "gah! You dusted my shrine here's a disfavor!" "wow, nice! You made him mad? here's a favor!"

If they choose to so directly oppose each other sure, but I don't think it should be made mandatory. Also, I view disfavors as, well just that; you are in the disfavor of someone so powerful that just their dislike of you causes you malign physical changes. They aren't direct attacks on another gods order members, merely ill will expressed formally.

Shikari actually created honeycake warriors that fought with him (to enact vengeance on all their comrades he had eaten), that was awesome.

I know we have that, but I want a shrug.

To me, the problem isn't God-punishment mechanics; the problem is that the players behind mortal characters don't take the Divine characters seriously enough.

Taking a God seriously doesn't mean agreeing with them all the time. It doesn't mean refraining from opposing them, it doesn't mean doing anything they say, it doesn't mean groveling to them. But it SHOULD, in my opinion, mean that you (the generic "you", not Aiakon or anyone in particular) realize that a God is so damn far above you in the food chain, like a tiger to a mouse, that it's just plain easier for them to kill you than to make the effort to put up with you.

Mortals shouldn't call Gods cowards or idiots or anything like that, that's ridiculous. Basically, implying to a God that they are a lesser being than you - even implying that they are an equal being to you - is not only unbelievably insulting, but it basically shouldn't even occur to our characters' minds that such a sentence could even be formulated.

Now, Gods can be wrong (they say so themselves). Gods can let their emotions rule them, Gods can make bad choices, Gods can take on goals that turn out not to be achievable ... in short, Gods can lose. And if a mortal wants to tell a God that they're wrong, or did something that's going to turn out bad, or that the mortal hates the God, then that's part of life (and a good God character will let that pass with nothing other than verbal chastisement or ridicule or whatever; in fact a good God character should actually encourage that kind of behavior, because it's exactly the sort of RP that Aiakon claims is missing).

But as soon as you imply that the God, as a being, deserves disdain, then it is (and should be) Game Over. As soon as you imply that you have a "right" to some particular sort of treatment just for being you, you've completely missed the point of Gods and mortals. Anytime we think "that's just another dude from real life playing that God, he's really just like me", and let it affect our actions ... that's bad roleplay on our part.

Side note to players of Gods: in my opinion, it helps to actually act like a being that's immeasurably higher on the food chain than mortals. Of course there can be all kinds of interaction, based on amusement, curiosity, tolerance, maybe even fondness - whatever a God might feel towards a mortal. But not equal friendship, for example; and what point is there in trying to impress a mortal, or acting cool? I'd rather feel the awe of being in a Divine presence than be treated like an equal.

/soapbox

That stuff falls apart the moment that Vernal gods were thought of. Especially now that we have one. Asarnil never thought the Gods were that far "above" him - after all, they got bitchslapped by Kethuru (then ran away) and it was the "lowly" mortals who saved the world. Yes, they are more powerful than him - currently at least - but mortals can reach that level of power too, and pure power isn't something that should be respected - its what you do with it that counts.

That being said he did have a soft spot for Raezon, Shikari and to a lesser extent Morgfyre, but that wasn't because they were "Divine" it was because they proved themselves by their actions and personalities to be worthy of it.

I'm slightly surprised by how defensive you sound. I'm even more surprised by the rather extraordinary level of sour grapes and resentment.

Firstly, you have no cause to feel defensive. What I am proposing will not stop you punishing people who 'piss you off'. It will yield another level of potential mortal/god interaction that could be beneficial to the game.

Secondly, I deliberately waited until now so as to -avoid- this sort of resentful "You all piss me off so I'll do this" reasoning. Although to be honest, I was expecting it from the players... not from you.



I'm not buying that argument. OOCly, a player god is -not- a natural force - he is just another bloke behind a keyboard. Gods may opt in or out of nerfing skills via disfavour, Gods can choose what punishments they give out. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Furthermore, I don't think "it is bad roleplay to be logging off when you have a TDF", nor did I say so. I scratch my head in puzzlement and echo Ferlas's suggestion of earlier. What I -did- say, which is wholly different, is that if someone doesn't play (because they can't), then Roleplay potential is lost.

We have to draw a line between the needlessly insulting shouts of players who are taking a genuinely OOC grievance IC, and those players who consider themselves to be RPing. In the past, Aiakon has given Terentia a pretty hard time, IC. That doesn't change the fact that, OOCly, I think she's great. When Aiakon stands against her, he does it as far as possible within what he perceives to be the roleplay framework: i.e he knows he's a maggoty mortal and she's a god, and he hopes fain will protect him from her wrath if fain approves - consequentially, he's going to try his very best to make sure he doesn't do something Fain will disapprove of. I'm sure Terentia knows that there's not even the smallest smattering of ooc grievance in Aiakon's actions, and I hope she relishes the interaction as much as I do. Unfortunately, due to the inevitability of a -really- painful zap/disfavour, I rather shy away from that sort of interaction as I gain levels. At level 89, a praying death with no mana is intolerably painful - we're talking hours and hours and hours wasted.. being dead with no mana is a really nasty exp drain.

So. Returning to your initial point, as posted: "Pissing off the Divine is not good. Do so at your own risk. If you don't like the consequences of pissing off the Divine. don't piss off the Divine. There is more than enough people in the game that feel they can say or do whatever they want to the Divine.. etc"

Allow me to amend it. "Pissing off the Administration is not good. Do so at your own risk. If you don't like the consequences of pissing of the Administration, don't piss of the Administration. However, in the course of good roleplay you may find yourself at odds with a God. Remember that the God has a role to play just as you have, and if you are unduly rude, the God will be forced by the dictates of his roleplay to zap/disfavour you."

Speaking as the player that has been zapped by gods of all organizations, who has the most successive zaps, one of the few who, in-character, openly attacked gods and the only one who openly attacked all gods, I feel I am 'qualified' to state an opinion on this.

Zaps hurt. I care very little about levels, but they hurt. They're ridiculous. Nerf them.

Successive zaps are retarded. Seriously. A character gets five gods deploying all their heavenly fury on him and then comes back to say 'neener neener'. It kills immersion dead. (I use immersion as a reason why praying deaths should be rare events). Frankly, zaps are 'inherently broken' - They're either painfully unjust, completely ineffective, or both.

Disfavours basically make a character useless, and yes, lots of people quit when they're disfavoured. I never did that, however.

Muting is ridiculous. I don't mean 'soft' muting that basically cuts out speech - I mean the ridiculous brand of muting that cuts out speech and makes your emotes invisible. THIS SHOULD NOT BE USED. As an IC punishment it makes the player incapable of roleplaying and makes him likely to quit - Roleplay relies on communication; being rendered totally incapable of communicating is a turn-off to most roleplayers.

Frankly, I think that the admin-as-gods model is an useless holdover from the bad old days of Achaea, and needs to be nixed. It's not good for players, it's not good for the producers, and it's not good for admin; it makes admin positions more attractive, but makes them more stressful and less pleasant. It attracts the wrong type of person to apply for admin (I'm not saying, however, that those people actually make it to admin). The alternative I'm comparing it to is what works for numerous entirely voluntary-run MU* - NPCs are played by admin, and many 'lesser' admin without any power that they can abuse to benefit themselves also play regular characters. I understand, however, that criticizing the fundamental architecture of the game is more or less futile.

Well, I'm hoping it's not.

The Admin and the Gods are the same people, but those people wear two different hats. It has been stated repeatedly by different people, including Estarra, that she wanted to keep the two sides of the god's role separate. It seems to me that admin style over-kill punishments should be left for the admin hat. The God hat should be kept slightly less painful. Sure, if a player is being a right arse... go admin-hat, yank em over for a slap on the wrists, and if necessary spank them with a punishment. But these punishments -are- over-kill, and shouldn't be given as a matter of course.

To be perfectly honest, I can't really envisage any players disagreeing with this. I perfectly understand a few people shrugging their shoulders and saying if it ain't broke don't fix it... but I see nothing fundamentally wrong in more clearly defining the dichotomy between IC/OOC God roles by nerfing the worst parts of IC, RPly given punishments.