[MUD-Dev] Consistent Characters (Was Remote client connection)

Travis Casey efindel at earthlink.net
Mon Nov 20 20:27:03 New Zealand Daylight Time 2000


On Sunday, November 19, 2000, Mordengaard wrote:

> From: "Marian Griffith" <gryphon at iaehv.nl>
>> > Travis Casey replied:
>> > > How do you know it's out of character?  Are all paladins the same?
>> > > Can paladins not be mistaken?  What if I want to play a fallen
>> > > paladin, and am in the process of having him fall?  What if I want to
>> > > play a flawed paladin -- a good man with a bad temper?  Simply by
>> > > leaving off the "attack" option, you're both giving me information
>> > > that I might not have had (that this is someone I'm not supposed to
>> > > attack) *and* restricting the kinds of characters I can play.
>>
>> You would put restrictions  on what a character can do  if it is  either
>> physically impossible for them (obviously) or if you, as a world-builder
>> want to keep the players  true-to-type.  Paladins are supposed to be the
>> champions  of their god,  and will have no desire  to do something wrong
>> (ideally, that is). While some players will see the challenge in playing
>> the paladin in character,  others will merely see a "cool" set of abili-
>> ties.  To prevent dilution of the meaning of the term paladin  you might
>> want to restrict the abilities of that class, if that matters to you, as
>> a game designer.  There are of course other ways to achieve the same end
>> result, but all take away freedom of the players one way or another,

> By removing classes but keeping player-run Guilds in place, what we're
> hoping to achieve is player-regulated "classes"... a good-aligned Templar
> Knight (that's Paladin to you) is essentially a fighter who is a member of
> and works for a good-aligned temple.  Now if that particular person does
> some nasty things, it's up to him/her and the temple officials (be they
> player or NPC) to deal with it.  They might banish the knight from the
> temple, or they might demand penance, but ultimately we've left the player
> free to do what he/she wishes.  No-one said their actions had to be free of
> consequences.

Exactly.  To me, allowing actions to have consequences makes for much,
much better roleplaying than either allowing anyone to do anything at
will, or artificially preventing players from having their characters
do certain things.  (Where by "artificially", I mean "in a way that
doesn't make sense in the game world."  Obviously, all restrictions in
a mud are "artificial" in the strictest sense.)

--
       |\      _,,,---,,_    Travis S. Casey  <efindel at earthlink.net>
 ZZzz  /,`.-'`'    -.  ;-;;,_   No one agrees with me.  Not even me.
      |,4-  ) )-,_..;\ (  `'-'
     '---''(_/--'  `-'\_)      


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev



More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list