Conflict: A Dish Best Served Simmering.

[Iron Oligarch]

Although it may be meaningless to say so, I have almost never posted on IC matters in an OOC venue -- let alone start a thread on the matter! -- but I believe that posting is warranted in this event.

I am speaking of the nature of Ivor Kalstoff's death. I suspect that the DMs do not want us to dwell upon the specific incident, so let's please keep things as general as possible (along with being courteous and respectful, naturally) in this discussion.

It is my belief that the circumstances of his death were poorly carried out, not necessarily from an IC perspective but from an OOC one. In killing Ivor days before his siege of Blackhearth Keep, the event that stood to involve well over one half of the server will likely fall apart, making weeks of plotting, double-crossing, politicking, and generally excellent roleplay come to nothing. No one will disagree that Ivor was a magnetic figure that attracted both solid allies and implacable enemies, or even that Ivor's actions deserved death ... but what's the point in killing a PC in such a fashion, bringing an inglorious end to a wonderful story?

This isn't real life, it's a cooperative storytelling effort. A great story is long-lasting, and climactic; I hold that killing a PC that forged an enormous coalition from nothing but spit, bubblegum and a few paperclips just before the culmination of his career is extremely anticlimactic. Does it make sense ICly that Ivor would be knifed alone, in the middle of nowhere? Sure, I suppose. But where's the fun in that?

The problem, in my opinion, is that people can get emotionally involved with the success of their character and faction, and develop a belief that they must "win". This is a very bad state of mind to be in. Randomly killing a character that brings enormous conflict to the server serves only to bring a great deal of roleplay to a premature end, and even discourage other players from bringing conflict in the future to avoid being ganked in the same fashion.

Perhaps Ivor deserved to die ICly. But why not do it during, or after the siege of Blackhearth, not before? That way everyone can be satisfied, not by "winning" but by ending a story as it should be ended. People shouldn't cut conflict short anymore than a book should end three-quarters of the way through the plot -- there's just no fun in it. And that's what we play this game for, if I'm not mistaken.

So to conclude: don't try to "win", but allow conflict to drag on as much as possible, and make efforts to ensure that the story ends on a satisfactory note for everyone. As the title of this thread says, conflict is best served after a long simmer, not a quick boil.

[Porkolt]

Hear hear.

[Drakill Tannan]

Damn. I hope blackhearth siege still takes place, but it is lame as hell ivor is dead. I can't agree more with the OP, whoever killed Ivor might have killed a great deal of fun for the rest of us.

[scrappayeti]

Good post, all points meritorious.

As one of the first of Ivor's enemies, Adeladle could have PhKed him to the back of the head dozens of times. But it was patently obvious that this story arc would be best concluded with a massive lagfest PvP of doom, the likes of which the server has never seen.

Simply a lack of imagination ganking him outright.

[putrid_plum]

prebuff ganking is how you win, isn't it?

[Random_White_Guy]

Glad to see I had a PC who left enough ripples that other people got mad when he died, but in the grand scheme of things-

What he did, what happened to him, and how it happened, were both OOCly and ICly acceptable. Without getting into details, the person who killed me was involved in the entirety of this plot from god damn near the very start of things. There were extenuating circumstances around the death that I find particularly distasteful but that's the nature of the game: Can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time.

No ill will should be had at all towards the folks who offed me, and there will be no doubt suitable IC ripples because of it.

~THAT SAID~

Everything that Iron has said is adamantly true, regarding PC vs PC conflict. However do not compromise your IC actions because you want to foster a "Story". Sometimes a douchebag needs to be punched in the face, sometimes a bandit needs his head cut off, and sometimes a war-mongering powerhouse needs a stabbing.

You have to stay true to ICly what your character would do.

People try to play up every story as an epic tale on par with great works of fiction. The fact of the matter is, its not.

Sometimes folks stories end. You should never feel bad about ending, or having yours ended. Should you end a story, you should make sure it changes your character. It can be little or it can be massive based on the story in question.

The beauty of EFU is no ending is ever permanent. You can always roll up a new PC and try to top it. Stories start whereever a story ends.

[lakhena]

While I think that Ivor's death at the seige of Blackhearth would have certainly been more dramatic than a quiet death elsewhere, I'm a bit disturbed that people are being called out for what they did in an IC fashion.  (No, I was not part of that group.)  Would there have been an issue if an assassin was hired to kill Ivor and/or his men, one by one?  What if he died to a horde of stargazers cannibalizing him?  Why are none of these suitable endings to an interesting story?  

While I commend players who create interesting events and pull others into those events, I think we're treading in a dangerous area when you assume those players / PCs should be immune to the hazards everyone else has to face (death by wild animals, assassinations, etc) for the sake of a building story.

[Kotenku]

I was going to post in this thread, and then I wasn't, and then lakhena said basically what I wanted to say anyway.

On the large scale, where the past four years of EfU are all one continuous story, Ivor's death registers the same whether it was at Blackhearth Keep, or in the wilds alone. Nobody gets a plot shield for being awesome. Being awesome means making your own plot shield, with plot.

[VanillaPudding]

A great story always involves a lot of risk and it's the characters that overcome those obstacles (or perhaps have the foresight to avoid them)  often and still push their agenda that truly shine. Every character will end, it's an inevitable fate, and the quality of things is shown in the time between the creation and end that truly give life to the world.

Ivor being killed was certainly legit as he had countless enemies around the colony and many of them were quite powerful. While it's a shame he won't be there to further lead his efforts I do know that there were many followers that can continue his story with their own agendas attached.

[Capricious]

People are missing the point. Of course there's no predetermined end for a character, and there never should be. However, the siege would have brought the most fun to the most people. It would have been what's best for roleplay on EfU in general. Ganking Ivor in the wilds lacked style, and imagination, and in my opinion is mostly due to people losing sight of these things.

What happened made EfU a somewhat less fun place to play, simple as that. As players we're just as responsible as DMs to create the fun here, and that means fun for others, not just self.

[Figaro]

I will agree with the overall sentiment of the post but not relate it directly to Ivor's death. It's not about WINNING, it's about making a story! In my eyes, anyway.

[NoneButTheBrave]

Hi, I am Thorgrim in game and have only recently become involved with Ivor and the Dogs O' War. I had a simple question, and please forgive my ignorance since I only know of this happening from this forum post, but.. Why does the character of Ivor have to go to waste? He started the ball rolling on a massive, massive thing here that got many people involved including myself obviously. Because he has died does not mean that it must end, and I think by allowing it to end is disrespectful to the work put into everything to date on both sides of the fence not just for Ivor.

Why must the siege come to a halt, why can it not go on? More people are involved in this than just Ivor. I think it is very unrealistic for it to stop because the (obvious in my opinion) assassination of one character. If it were to stop it only sets a bad atmosphere and example for the server by telling people that conflict can be avoided entirely by simply offing someone.

[Dr Dragon]

Maybe members of the Dogs of war should make the invasion go on? TBH if RWG was what kept the faction afloat and PCS cant pick up the slack of an epic PC faction that RWG started then that faction deserves to fail.


-DRD

[Portal Rat]

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.

[Capricious]

Maybe members of the Dogs of war should make the invasion go on? TBH if RWG was what kept the faction afloat and PCS cant pick up the slack of an epic PC faction that RWG started then that faction deserves to fail.

This really isn't the point, it's got nothing to do with the faction. Maybe the siege will proceed, maybe not, we just have to see how the RP goes. But I can pretty much guarantee it won't be this Saturday as planned. There needs to be a lot of planning redone, and alliances resealed, but first a character will need to step up, and I'm not really sure if that will happen yet.

Go back and read what Iron Oligarch said because I feel he's right on the mark.