Topic: Character Death
Sides: Allowed Player Killing, Player Consent Required
Conflicts: Player Rights, impact on setting, impact on plot, OOC influence on IC
Side One: Allowed Player Killing
Allowing player killing adds several elements to a roleplay, including depth, character motivation and realism. The depth it adds is through many facets: emotional impact, time lapse and character development. It motivates characters and players themselves because both know they have the chance of dying. It also adds reality to a character and player if they are not completely safe. A player will roleplay a character a lot more realistically and character traits will be more obvious. A brave character will have better rewards and consequences for his actions. A timid character will often be more safe. A calculating character will have a higher success rate while a brash one will simply roll with the punches. The chance for death, in addition to getting hurt and other negative side effects, highlights character personalities, roleplayer skill and roleplay styles.
Side Two: Counter-argument
Allowing player killing may add more depth, but it may detract depth as well. By giving characters the ability to kill, it can derail a character by making them a tool for power. Additionally, more powerful characters are given too many advantages when their power can result in simply ending another character during conflict. Allowing player killing simlpy creates a system to be abused within a roleplay, regardless of the depth it may add. Brash characters will die faster. Timid characters will be boring. Calculating characters will just kill who they can, then hide. It will become less of a roleplay and more of a 'game'.
Side Two: Player Consent Required
Forcing players to consent to their character death, first and foremost, promotes out of character interaction, which is just as important to a roleplay as in character interactions. Everynone should be on the same page with the same understanding and no single player should have their rights infringed on. It is not fair that anyone more powerful than their character can just swipe by and kill them, ruining all of their hard work and development. Players often develop an emotional connection to their character and an abrupt, unwanted end can leave them with remorse and no catharsis. These negative feelings can be a detriment to a community, thus forcing character consent can prevent such grievances.
Side One: Counter-Argument
By allowing players the right to deny their character death, they can influence a roleplay greatly from the out of character. Whereas it may be vastly unfair to have a character die without a proper end, it is also vastly unfair to force another character to act out of character in an in character situation because of an out of character decision made by someone completely arbitrary to the character and the player. While it is important to preserve peace and encourage interaction out of character, it is also important to preserve the integrity of a setting and plot. By allowing players the ability to deny a justified action, the system can be abused and thus negatively influence the roleplay.
Observations
Both arguments create a system that can be abused.
Each system promotes different aspects of the roleplay; plot depth and strength vs. community strength and bonding for apk and rpc respectively
Each argument seems to defend one side of a situation, e.g. allowed player killing defends someone who killed a character properly while required consent defends someone who died unfairly
Primary Conflict
After analysis, the primary conflict is simply that both systems can be abused and work on the assumption that someone will abuse it. Thus, it is only logical to create a situation where no single party is at fault.
Scenario
Player A roleplays RPC A properly. RPC A is a very brash, confident character who is willing to fight a shinobi above their skill level alone. Player B roleplays RPC B properly. RPC B is calm character that abides by the rules of his village and is more powerful than RPC A. RPC A engages in a fight with RPC B and loses. RPC B is faced with killing RPC A. The rules of his village are to kill enemy shinobi if possible. RPC B kills RPC A. The fight was fair, entertaining and each RPC was played to the best of their respective players' abilities with each party playing fairly.
Conclusion
If Player A does not wish for their character to die and only claims it was within their character to act as they did while also providing evidence, is it fair for Player B to skill kill them? Does Player A deserve the right to say "No, you may not kill my character," when there has been no fault on either party and force Player B to break their character to do so.
Logically, no. Giving Player A that right is infringing on the right of Player B to properly roleplay a character. No player inherently deserves the right to tell another player they cannot act within the given confines of their logical actions.
Solution
Even with the conclusion that no player deserves the right to tell another player that they may not do something that their character can, could and should do in a situation like the aforementioned scenario, it was not that conclusion that brought forth the argument. It was the worry of abusing a system set forth. Thus, if the logical solution is to allow player death, developing methods to avoid system abuse for allowing it are needed.
Overall solution, look for methods to avoid instances where players can abuse their right to kill others and create numerous ways to avoid said player-killing. If a Player wants to simply kill others, remove them. If a Player breaks character to kill another, remove them. A player should play their character to play their character, interact with others and develop their character and the story, not kill others. A character should not be designed to kill others. A system should be set forth to avoid player killing. Leaders of the roleplay should guide characters away from situations that cannot be manipulated to avoid said player killing. In the event that player killing happens, it should be known that it is acceptable and it should have to be justified. Before it is finalized, attempt to "retroactively continue" aka retcon a situation to avoid the player death.
Overall Solution
Create good leadership, create strong bonds in the community, avoid players who wish to abuse their rights in ways that will negatively effect others and potentially allow a retcon if both parties accept. Retcons can NOT force players to roleplay a scenario that results in a certain way. That is not roleplay. It should only be used if both players wish to avoid player killing.