Hikmat on the Ethics of Individualism in RPGs
The text of two of Hikmat's posts on Ethics in RPGs (this should probably be required reading; in fact, I'd like her as our Diplomat to post a link to *everything* she posts on the Ubi.Com forums, when she posts it):

In which the author attempts to cast the conflict as an ethical dilemma, to provide insight to the reader.

The real issue is hidden behind allegations and name calling, whether it be carebears or 1337 d00ds. The stereotypes are, in the end, caricatures which no one actually is. I've never seen someone say "u r pwned." Nor have I ever seen someone say "Forsooth, fair sir, what dost thou doest!? I seeth a dagger in thy hand, and beseech thee to stay it!"

However, the caricatures aside, there is a disagreement on how Shadowbane should be played. It doesn't have to do with whether killing R3s or killing R2s is ganking. It doesn't have to do with speaking in Shakesperian English. I'd argue it doesn't have to do with ARAC, or roleplay, or any of the virtues or sins that are tossed around these boards. I think it has to do with something else entirely: whom you're trying to entertain.

Take, for an example, PvP. Let's say someone is sitting in their city, chatting with a friend OOCly over tells. They're playing your most hated enemy. That person really doesn't want to PvP, in fact, is in the midst of moving a cat off the desk. You can attack them and easily kill them, before the mouse is back in hand. If you knew all this, would you attack?

The question is whether your enjoyment considers the enjoyment of others. You can go and kill people in a way that is decidedly a total haze for them. That is, I think, what people mean by 'ganking.' It's attacking characters that have no chance. There is no possible fun in it for them. You have a good time -- at their expense.

Take, for example, a fellow player of mine, who will go unnamed. Once, he jumped a few Tribunal in the desert, an R5 and two R3s. He killed one of the R3s, and took something very valuable they happened to be carrying. Being Tribunal, and his being able to sneak, they were quite unable to find him. He played cat and mouse for a while, and their frustration grew. So, ICly, so the encounter could be fun for them as well, he challenged the R5 to a duel. He lost. Leaving the Tribunal angry and frustrated was not something he wanted to do -- he wanted them to have fun too. Take, in contrast, Haunted descending on your R2 hunting party and killing you in a few moments. They're not concerned with whether you had fun -- although some might enjoy it, as a reminder of the danger of the game, many do not, and Haunted certainly doesn't care if you do.

You can argue that pulling punches is carebearish. You can argue that playing without consideration about the other person's wants is d00dish. These sorts of ethical disparities are present in many aspects of our lives, such as the distinction between conservatism and liberalism in the U.S. They boil down to the distinction of consideration of community and consideration of the individual. Are you playing this game for yourself, or for everyone?


in the end, all of this RP-nonRP, ARAC-lore conflict comes down to two approximate groups (there are people inbetween, of course) trying to establish a shared morality. One side is communal, the other individualistic. Each will try to establish it as the one that rules the server. The question is, which side, if any, will you take?

--------------------

Quote:
But the fact is, that they knew what was fun for them might not of been fun for us.



I don't think communalism necessitates never doing something the other party doesn't want. That is a separate approach to the problem, one which has been in MUSHes for some time. I think the term usually bandied about is "consensual roleplay." That is, you can't act against another character without their consent.

For a variety of reasons, purely consensual roleplay is untenable. A friend of mine once wrote a treatise(1) on the matter, in an attempt to construct a system that could hopefully capture the spectrum of playing styles. The conflict between consensual and non-consensual RP can also be reduced to an ethical dilemma, with a simple spectrum. The extremes of the spectrum (outside of a game) are the Spectator, who cannot act, and can only observe, and the Solipist, who has complete control over everything that occurs. The first reads a screenplay, while the second writes it. Generally, people play these games for neither. Instead, they want some degree of control (whom you attack), while having many events outside their control (what races other players play).

Of course, these are "Multiplayer" games, and so you can't have 1000 screenwriters on at once. At some point, there are conflicting desires for what happens in-game. On one hand, you could say that you didn't consent to being attacked; on the other, LoO could say they didn't consent to jeapordize their RP by having to treat an obvious foe peacefully. These sorts of contradictory desires prevent pure consent from being feasible. Note, for example, how while there seems to be a common opinion that killing R2s is ganking, there's also a common opinion that R5s are generally fair game? These are the sorts of guidelines that emerge, trying to codify what people can agree on as a compromise between the competing desires of action and control.

(1) I think the most interesting part is Appendix C: Dice.