Conflict: A Dish Best Served Simmering.

[Dr Dragon]

Amen to what Dr. D said.

Furthermore, if we're instituting this as a rule now, I want all my FD'ed characters back so they can finish their major huge stories that were just about to get rolling.

Yea so do I!

[Drakill Tannan]

t

he siege would have brought the most fun to the most people.

Capricios nailed it IMO.

Even if the gank was ICly justifable, and OOCly allowed, a gank is much less fun than a massive PvP ending with an epic confrontation.

The gank involves 5+ people. The other can invlove half the server.

It's easy to say the siege should continue, likely will, should. But it won't be the same. Now the main atnagonist (or the protagonist) is gone, and the motivations will not be as strong ICly. Some characters wanted to fight only to kill ivor, or to gain ivors favour, now that he is gone, the characters will not have a reason to fight, and while they still can, won't make sence, and will feel lame, hollow.

Umbaktu for instance was going to fight because ivor would give them land, with him gone, who will give them the land? No one, why fight at all? Only for the OOC trhill of PvP, only justificable by the characters wanting to feel the thrill of battle, if it suits them.

lame.

[Nufferz]

No one is immune to death. Kotenku stated this nicely but you have to remember that characters of stature and high level of involvement in the server are always at risk of death in regards to assassination (regardless of how well they can protect themselves).

Doesn't anyone remember the times in EfU when FD could happen in the most public of areas and the assassin would use a smooth stone or whatever it was to escape into that system of doorways? Besides, who says plots have to die with their leader? Montezzi's reign continued far beyond his death by the minions he recruited.

Honestly, if this entire siege depended on one PC leading it, I would not blame the means of his death on its fallout, I would look to those who were involved and passed up the chance to take his place and continue the initiative. Ivor left a flame, either fuel it or let it flicker out but it all depends on the characters he spent hours upon hours recruiting.

Edit: I have no clue what happened IG so this may not have been an assassination! Just fyi.

[Caddies]

For clarity's sake, the assassination in the wilds was carefully planned out by several PCs who all plotted together on it, and Ivor made his choice to put himself into that position in the first place. Comments such as this "lacking style and imagination" are neither accurate or desired.

While I appreciate the general sentiment of the post, and the views of Oligarch and Capricious, I stringently disagree with their insinuations; that a PC who is very dynamic and involves many others in his schemes should receive an extraneous blanket insulating him from FD PVP.

As is always the case in EFU, you make the bed you lie in. If you stir up enough conflict, you will have enemies, and some of them will plan to remove you. This is GOOD. These are the best characters, irregardless of how they die.

As for the current situation, as Capricious mentions alliances will need to be resealed and the general dynamics of the current conflict rediscovered, especially with regard to leadership questions. Does this not produce more exciting RP, the very thing you said the assassination took away?

As is the answer to many threads that pop up in General Discussion: focus not on what others are or aren't doing, and just concentrate on yourself and your PC, and how you can best involve others and add to the EFU atmosphere. :p

[Groucho the Marxist]

I'd like to encourage anyone who feels the loss of Ivor makes the plot he started hollow to step up and fill the missing shoes. There's absolutely no reason his plot should stall. It's a credit to how well his character did that his plot could easily outlive him, providing his supporters don't simply let it die.

[Ranek]

Oh well, Kudos on RwG for bringing up something so sweet, I hope others carry his plot on. I also hope whoever killed him make similar cool stuff that involves so many people and bring sweet stuff to the server.

[Iron Oligarch]

Excellent, it seems that we've got a good discussion going. I should clarify, that I don't believe that proactive PCs should receive a plot shield at all. Likewise, Caddies makes an excellent point in his closing arguments (in addition to the rest of his post):

As is the answer to many threads that pop up in General Discussion: focus not on what others are or aren't doing, and just concentrate on yourself and your PC, and how you can best involve others and add to the EFU atmosphere.

I have no interest in placing a burden on others. As RwG has said, everything done was perfectly acceptable OOCly and ICly. However, I still encourage everyone to rise above what is "acceptable", and strive for what is "meritorious". One should not compromise their character's beliefs to make fun for others, but that's not to say that characters can't bend them to give others an opportunity.

[Garem]

I'd like to encourage anyone who feels the loss of Ivor makes the plot he started hollow to step up and fill the missing shoes. There's absolutely no reason his plot should stall. It's a credit to how well his character did that his plot could easily outlive him, providing his supporters don't simply let it die.

That's all well and good, but I can say with a great deal of certainty that this is not as simple, easy, or likely as you may believe. None of the Dogs' players are willing or able to do as much as RwG could (read: because he has no life, we do). The plot needed RwG, and the plot is damned near dead without him. If it does pick up, seriously, super-kudos to whoever does it.

Caddies and those who agree with his opinion, haven't we all discussed this ad nauseum? I was under the impression that we wanted to dissuade people from FD ganking. Planning and the RP of doing so has nothing to do with it, it's the result of that RP that is being questioned. I believed that as a roleplaying community that we expected better, barring certain circumstances like assassins. Even those assassin PCs are under strict watch, and certain soft requirements exist.

I don't believe anyone in the entire situation is crying foul play, which seems to be more of what you're addressing. The OP and concurring posts simply state that they had hoped for, nay, expected a higher level of creativity than a team gank on a solo PC with an immediate FD. Furthermore, Ivor Kalstoff did not ever, and did not plan to ever as far as I'm aware, FD another PC (making "fair death" arguments incomplete for lack of a more precise term). Never FD'ing was a plot point we discussed during our early designs of the Dogs that stuck with the group from then until now (the truth comes out, RwG was the heart but I was the brains behind the Dogs, bring it RwG). I can only imagine that this will change, unfortunately.

Consider the other options that could have been taken.

-Take the PC's armor and weapon with the promise to return it in the case of good behavior, ie manipulation and blackmail to control a powerful PC mercenary corp.
-Threat of death, having been bested once, if a certain criteria is not met.
-Held the PC for ransom for certain valuable objective, be it items, gold, or policy.

These aren't super creative and very abstract. I'm sure our rockin' playerbase can come up with more suitable, situation-specific outcomes.

Now, don't mistake me folks. I know the FD was fair as judged by the DMs present. I trust them. The concern is that it came instantly to ending a character with what many of us believe was a premature FD. It's a cyclical thing, the "win" attitude.

The Take Home Point: Let's move on, whether you agree with me wholeheartedly or vehemently disapprove of my opinion and try to make very good choices in the future when you plan on killing a character. And remember, when you FD a character, it's just all the more likely that cool plots YOUR character is involved with will be ended prematurely and mid-plot, crashing even more plots and effecting even more people.

[TheImpossibleDream]

As is the answer to many threads that pop up in General Discussion: focus not on what others are or aren't doing, and just concentrate on yourself and your PC, and how you can best involve others and add to the EFU atmosphere.

Sums up my opinion on the matter. This sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME. However a mistake was made in that arrangements for the "pvp" were made in a massively public manner instead of privately thus leading to something anti-climatic.

It was nice to see people who'd never really got involved in this sort of thing giving it their all but they have to understand that more often than not this is the way that these sort of things come to an end.

Involve too many people in the planning phase of something like that and you end up delaying it so long you can't outlast it.

[Capricious]

Sums up my opinion on the matter. This sort of thing happens ALL THE TIME. However a mistake was made in that arrangements for the "pvp" were made in a massively public manner instead of privately thus leading to something anti-climatic.

It was nice to see people who'd never really got involved in this sort of thing giving it their all but they have to understand that more often than not this is the way that these sort of things come to an end.

Involve too many people in the planning phase of something like that and you end up delaying it so long you can't outlast it.

You're absolutely right. RwG tried to involve lots of people, and delayed matters so that people could get in on the fun. As a result those delays caused him to die before it could actually happen. But is the lesson here that we shouldn't try big things that involve lots of people? Because to me that's exactly the problem, that we all accept this lesson. But I've put forward my thoughts on the matter, so I'll just continue on roleplaying as I was.

[athousandyearsofpain]

I agree that there was a lot of reasons for a lot of characters to kill Ivor. Did the character deserve to die for what he did or was going to do? Probably.
But still. Letting your enemy live and create a BALANCED conflict where each side has a decent chance of "winning" or furthering their goals and make make conflicts last longer makes it more fun for everyone.

I've only played on this server for a little more than a year, but I've noticed a change. A change in how plots and conflict is handled by PCs. It has been mentioned a few times on the forums, the "I want to win" mentality. I played a character on the opposing side of Ivor and as his (probably) greatest enemy I had to deal with people wanting to assasinate him from pretty much day one, for just speaking threats, so I know what I'm talking about.
If everyone who tries to stir up some conflict would get killed in the now most common "prebuff invisgank" way, people will stop playing these type of characters and the server will slowly die because of lack of player initiative, and DMs will have to handle everything when it comes to making stories and push plots.
I'm not saying that this particular case was worse than any other, I'm just saying that people need to start using their imagination before they switch to full damage mode and just kills people who tries to burst their little bubble they play in.
Instead, try to use other ways. Some has already been mentioned in this thread.

To end this post I'd like to ask a question;
What's the fun of playing if you know you're going to win?

[Caddies]

FD is fine if it is earned ICly. Always has been, always will be. Opinions/arguments derived of personal feelings on what is essentially an unconditional issue are superfluous.

It has been discussed ad nauseum, I agree. And so in the interest of closure, here is the definitive answer on the subject:

We strongly encourage creative alternatives to FDs where applicable, but sometimes FD makes the most IC sense and assuming ample IC reasoning is there for the deed, its perfectly legitimate.

I know certain people would like to see a revision of this philosophy, but I'm afraid its a central tenet of the EFU vision and will not be changed.

[9lives]

Wait, so you guys are surprised that one of RWG's characters has died before its time?

[DangerousDan]

Wait, so you guys are surprised that one of RWG's characters has died before its time?

(+1)