My first experience as a PK
Mortifera
Friday, I decided to take my GL master mage out and see what it was
like to PK. Wearning nothing but a few clothes and with just enough
reagents that I thought would probably kill somebody (3 each of silk
and ash, and 8 each of pearl and nightshade).
After camping out between Minoc and the crossroads for a while, taking
down a couple of newbies and going to Dread Lord without getting much
loot, I'm thinking to myself that this isn't so great.
So I trot over to the Cove graveyard, and hide out inside the gates.
Along comes some japanese guy. With a single flamestrike the guy
falls over flat on his face dead! I walk over to loot his body, and
among about 50 of each reag, some magic chainmail, and a couple of
weapons, there is a copper key reading "Safe." I'm thinking "cool"
now if I can only find what this key goes to.
So I wander around the graveyard for a while and come up to a house.
The house has some japanese words on it's sign and I'm thinking, "Hey,
this must be a japanese campout." Unfortunately, the key does not
unlock the door to this house. Then I think to myself that the key
reads "Safe" so it very possibly could be the key to a chest in a
tent. So I walk around for less the a minute and come across a tent.
Walking into the tent, I come to the chest and bam! The key opens the
chest! This chest is loaded with hundreds of each reag, magic armor,
magic weapons, magic bows! I'm freaking out. It takes me three trips
to empty out his chest. When I get back home, I'm looking through the
loot and I find a house key! So, I'm guessing that his house is
somewhere near his tent. I go back, and just a couple of screens
north of his tent is his house! And it's loaded too! So I proceed to
loot his house which took 6 trips! Now, remember, I've got the guys
keys so this looting is perfectly legal.
What's the easiest way to break into a house? Kill the guy with the
key.
So anyway, I PKed several people, got some good loot. If I had known
that PKing was so profitable I would have started doing it long ago!
In the total of 5 hours that I was activly PKing, I probably collected
40,000 gold in reagents, armor, and weapons.
Anyway, I finally died last night (Sunday) when some guy with high
resist came and got me with his halberd (wearing no armor, I'm an easy
target) But, big deal! People feel sooooo good when they kill a PK,
but let me tell you for every PK you kill, that PK probably killed 15
others. Do you really think that PK gives a shit that he dies? It's
just a minor inconvience.
Alas, with the new reputation system, I'll not be PKing anymore.
Yappie
Perhaps the greatest challenge of a parent is to teach their children to
resist temptation.
Thanks for the great post. I feel even better now, resisting being a PK,
knowing how much I COULD be getting if only I turned to the 'dark side'.
-Yappie-
For every negative action, there must be an equal and exactly positive
re-action to keep the world from going insane.
Mortifera wrote in message <357c023f....@news-in.dtc.net>...
Volcar
Did it feel good knowing that you ruined hundreds or even thousands of hours
of work done by those characters, especially the guy whose house and tent
you looted? Are you a K001 d00d now? I know, I know, its only a game. You
deserved that loot, right? All their fault, right? You earned it, right?
Right. Yeah.
--
Volcar
Catskills
Mikael K Karlsson
On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 15:43:50 GMT, van...@dtc.net (Mortifera)
wrote:
>So anyway, I PKed several people, got some good loot. If I had known
>that PKing was so profitable I would have started doing it long ago!
It's nice to see people with such high morale... So your
character would turn to PK'ing in a minute just because it's
profitable_, just as you did for the fun of it??
Try roleplaying a character for once...
--
Mikael K Karlsson
http://surf.to/mkk/
Mortifera
On Mon, 8 Jun 1998 14:33:49 -0400, "Volcar" <flor...@nospam.osu.edu>
wrote:
>Did it feel good knowing that you ruined hundreds or even thousands of hours
>of work done by those characters, especially the guy whose house and tent
>you looted? Are you a K001 d00d now? I know, I know, its only a game. You
>deserved that loot, right? All their fault, right? You earned it, right?
>Right. Yeah.
It is not as if I had used an exploit to break in. He shouldn't have
been carrying his tent key with him in a graveyard. What did he
expect? So yes, it is all his fault.
Additionally, I've lost hundreds of hours worth of work myself to
looters. Not that it makes it right, but I do know how it feels. But
then again, it IS only a game!
No, I don't consider myself a k00l d0Od or whatever.
Jeff
Well put Volcar. Its assholes like this that make me wish I could
chlorinate the gene pool. Really, Mortifera, so you got a whole
bunch of stuff. Big deal. I would much rather be judged by who
I am than what I have.
Jeff - Pulse - Baja
Volcar wrote:
>
> Did it feel good knowing that you ruined hundreds or even thousands of hours
> of work done by those characters, especially the guy whose house and tent
> you looted? Are you a K001 d00d now? I know, I know, its only a game. You
> deserved that loot, right? All their fault, right? You earned it, right?
> Right. Yeah.
>
> --
>
> Volcar
>
> Catskills
>
Drake
Well, I'm sure this "japanese" player you pk'd and looted to the moon will
be happy to know your'e done pk'n after the new rep is implemented.
Moron. That's the kind of "kewldood" story that nobody wants to hear
anymore.
Some people just don't get it.
Mortifera wrote in message <357c023f....@news-in.dtc.net>...
>Friday, I decided to take my GL master mage out and see what it was
>like to PK. Wearning nothing but a few clothes and with just enough
>reagents that I thought would probably kill somebody (3 each of silk
>and ash, and 8 each of pearl and nightshade).
snip the rest
Ingot Head
Mortifera wrote in message <357c38e5....@news-in.dtc.net>...
>It is not as if I had used an exploit to break in. He shouldn't have
>been carrying his tent key with him in a graveyard. What did he
>expect? So yes, it is all his fault.
"She was wearing these skimpy clothes see!?? Just Asking for
it!! Of Course I attacked her! It was all her fault!!!"
or
"This guy was in a rough neighborhood, and he was wearing
this fancy suit, and driving an expensive car! He was Just Asking
For It!"
or even
"But when you're wife keeps yelling, and keeps yelling! Gets in
your face, when she KNOWS you don't like it!! She's just asking
for a beating! It's HER fault when I hit her!"
OK, maybe they were stupid to do what they did, but that DOES
NOT remove the responsibility for what you did from your shoulders.
You, (even in a game) are responsible for your own actions.
>Additionally, I've lost hundreds of hours worth of work myself to
>looters. Not that it makes it right, but I do know how it feels. But
>then again, it IS only a game!
"But your honor! I got mugged last week so I thought it was my
turn! I got it coming!"
You're right, you know how it feels. But
that means you're even MORE responsible! You have no excuse!
You KNOW what it's like to have months of toil taken from you!
You KNOW the sinking feeling of having to start all over. You went
out and DID IT ANYWAY!.
>No, I don't consider myself a k00l d0Od or whatever.
Then don't act like one.
Ingot Head
Atlantic
Roman Yazhbin
You see why I was so happy to be a PK.
Not only it's profitable, but also it is a great experience.
Tell me, did you enjoy killing those jerks, or you all the time thought
about profit?
When people hear about my wealth (in the game) they allways trying to
tell me that I am a cheater. Now you are the living, walking, talking,
typing, playing example of easy and fast moneymaking without cheating.
ti...@enteract.bottblock.com
Mortifera <van...@dtc.net> said...
> What's the easiest way to break into a house? Kill the guy with the
> key.
> So anyway, I PKed several people, got some good loot. If I had known
> that PKing was so profitable I would have started doing it long ago!
> In the total of 5 hours that I was activly PKing, I probably collected
> 40,000 gold in reagents, armor, and weapons.
And *this* is why I support the idea of "sacrifice to the Gods" upon
being player-killed, allowing the victim to voluntarily nuke all their
goods so the PKer can't have them.
Tirya
Farren, Apprentice Miner, Catskills
Jyhad
Mikael K Karlsson wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 15:43:50 GMT, van...@dtc.net (Mortifera)
> wrote:
>
> >So anyway, I PKed several people, got some good loot. If I had known
>
> >that PKing was so profitable I would have started doing it long ago!
>
> It's nice to see people with such high morale... So your
> character would turn to PK'ing in a minute just because it's
> profitable_, just as you did for the fun of it??
> Try roleplaying a character for once...
>
> --
Bullshit, UO aint about RPGing I thought everyone had relised that by
now.
>
Clinton
Relax...have some herbal tea...
If what he did had such an effect as you claim, then that means it was worth
doing (i.e. the loot had value).
Where is it written that it is wrong to take another character's hard-earned
loot? I understand, you want to role-play, which is all well and good (and
quite fun!), but _not everyone does_. Besides, how do you know he won't
role-play the part of a blackmailer or something and arrange a meeting for
those characters to get some of their loot back? Now _that_ would be
exciting!
BTW, my caveat: I have never PK'd, looted or in any way infringed on _what I
perceive to be_ the right of every individual to pursue their own happiness.
But then again, I have a very hard time separating my RL values from those
of the characters I play. Sometimes, I wish it were otherwise...
Volcar wrote in message <6lhb18$5ve$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>...
Clinton
Clinton
As I understood it, the "Kewl Doods" were more of the "hehe," "sup," "ura
looser," "Bank Vendor Guards Buy" variety. Is everyone who engages on PvP
against unwilling opponents a "Kewl Dood?"
Ingot Head wrote in message ...
<snip>
[Mortifera]
>>No, I don't consider myself a k00l d0Od or whatever.
[Ingot Head]
Clinton
I'm quite sure that I am one of them. Just what is so bad about one
character using the _intended_ framework of the game (no cheat, no exploit,
no mule) to further their own, albeit reprehensible IMO, interests?
Drake wrote in message <6lh9r0$u61$1...@legends.cet.com>...
<snip>
John Wagner
Drake (a...@cet.com) wrote:
: Well, I'm sure this "japanese" player you pk'd and looted to the moon will
: be happy to know your'e done pk'n after the new rep is implemented.
Interestingly, after the 'new rep system' begins all these macrod
GL ex-PKs will be laughing at all of their victims. Meanwhile people who
accidentally discharged an earthquake scroll in town, attacked noto pks
or EVers, or bards who misclicked in provoke, yet don't use macros on
principal, will be labeled as 'dastardly' or 'dishonorable'. Really
quite amusing. I dont suppose Origin actually has a neutral-blue kill
count on record? Could be useful to be secretly tallying all those
EV player kills for when they convert over.
John Wagner, Moonbat, ii, cats, benUziel, Ches, xor GL
Dundee
On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 19:22:30 GMT, van...@dtc.net (Mortifera) wrote:
>Additionally, I've lost hundreds of hours worth of work myself to
>looters. Not that it makes it right, but I do know how it feels.
Can you imagine what it would feel like for him if you gave it all
back?
--
Dundee of Lake Superior - Skep...@SPAMISantisocial.com
Townstone proposal and Other Stuff:
http://dundee.uong.com
Dundee
On 8 Jun 1998 19:51:17 GMT, ti...@enteract.bottblock.com wrote:
>And *this* is why I support the idea of "sacrifice to the Gods" upon
>being player-killed, allowing the victim to voluntarily nuke all their
>goods so the PKer can't have them.
Absolutely. They gave that ability to the NPCs ages ago and for the
very same reason - the NPCs were the most profitable things to kill in
the game ('cept maybe for other players).
I would prefer a different rationale or term for it, but I like the
idea.
All the update center said was "NPCs will now destroy their equipment
upon death".
Roman Yazhbin
On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Ingot Head wrote:
>
> Mortifera wrote in message <357c38e5....@news-in.dtc.net>...
>
> >It is not as if I had used an exploit to break in. He shouldn't have
> >been carrying his tent key with him in a graveyard. What did he
> >expect? So yes, it is all his fault.
>
>
> "She was wearing these skimpy clothes see!?? Just Asking for
> it!! Of Course I attacked her! It was all her fault!!!"
>
> or
>
> "This guy was in a rough neighborhood, and he was wearing
> this fancy suit, and driving an expensive car! He was Just Asking
> For It!"
>
> or even
>
> "But when you're wife keeps yelling, and keeps yelling! Gets in
> your face, when she KNOWS you don't like it!! She's just asking
> for a beating! It's HER fault when I hit her!"
>
> OK, maybe they were stupid to do what they did, but that DOES
> NOT remove the responsibility for what you did from your shoulders.
> You, (even in a game) are responsible for your own actions.
>
> >Additionally, I've lost hundreds of hours worth of work myself to
> >looters. Not that it makes it right, but I do know how it feels. But
> >then again, it IS only a game!
>
>
> "But your honor! I got mugged last week so I thought it was my
> turn! I got it coming!"
>
> You're right, you know how it feels. But
> that means you're even MORE responsible! You have no excuse!
> You KNOW what it's like to have months of toil taken from you!
> You KNOW the sinking feeling of having to start all over. You went
> out and DID IT ANYWAY!.
>
> >No, I don't consider myself a k00l d0Od or whatever.
>
>
> Then don't act like one.
>
> Ingot Head
> Atlantic
>
Exuse me, but don't you think that the fact that guards will kill you on
the sight and no ability to go to towns are good enough to cover the
"responsibility" bullshit you just typed?
When I kill with my PK, I don't feel sorry for that asshole that got
caught in the crossfire and it's clearly his fault that he was carryieng
the key with him. He had to pay for his stupidity. I am absolutely
positive that if you would have a chance to loot someone's house you will
do that without a doubght. Life of PK is not very good and simple compare
to regular players. It very dangeruos and non-plesuant, so don't you think
it suppose to be rewarded in some ways? :-)
greywolf
Good post. That is exactly why there are PK'ers out there. I choose not
to, understanding the profits involved and you chose to go that route. Your
decision and I can't fault you for that.
I stopped getting so worked up by pk'ers when I stopped taking it
personnally. I see them as nothing more than a really difficult monster in
the game. I asses the situation (as with all monsters I run into), decide
if I can take it out, if not get out quick. Just like any monsters.
Never ever carry anything outside the cities that you can't afford to lose.
It allows me to say "Oh well" when I get pk'ed just like I say "Oh well"
when I get killed by monsters.
As for the guy you looted it was your call. Bonehead shouldn't have been
carrying a key where he could lose it. I have stolen keys with my thief
character before and sometimes made the choice to give it back informing the
individual of their foolishness for carrying it around or sometimes I just
keep it as a trophy. I don't have the patience to run around the continent
trying the key in every house I find.
I'm not so sure that the new noto system will be so devestating to PK'ers.
After turning to "the Dark Side" I would try it for a while to see if the
profits are worth the deaths and stat losses.
Mortifera wrote in message <357c023f....@news-in.dtc.net>...
>Friday, I decided to take my GL master mage out and see what it was
>like to PK. Wearning nothing but a few clothes and with just enough
>reagents that I thought would probably kill somebody (3 each of silk
>and ash, and 8 each of pearl and nightshade).
>
>After camping out between Minoc and the crossroads for a while, taking
>down a couple of newbies and going to Dread Lord without getting much
>loot, I'm thinking to myself that this isn't so great.
>
<snip>
russell
Roman Yazhbin wrote:
Exuse me, but don't you think that the fact that guards will kill you on
the sight and no ability to go to towns are good enough to cover the
"responsibility" bullshit you just typed?When I kill with my PK, I don't feel sorry for that asshole that got
caught in the crossfire and it's clearly his fault that he was carryieng
the key with him. He had to pay for his stupidity. I am absolutely
positive that if you would have a chance to loot someone's house you will
do that without a doubght. Life of PK is not very good and simple compare
to regular players. It very dangeruos and non-plesuant, so don't you think
it suppose to be rewarded in some ways? :-)
 No, excuse ME! I don't think that those restrictions do anything to "cover the resposibilty". And let me tell you something else, asshole, I would not loot a house if given the opportunity, with the possible exception of knowing that it belonged to some Quake-Head punk like you. In fact, I have even returned a discovered key to house to it's owner!  So fuck you, don't even think about projecting your lack of morals or ethics or honor onto anyone else.
Roman Yazhbin
The problem is that when someone broke into the house, the house does not
belong to the previous owner anymore and all goods in it...
On 8 Jun 1998 ti...@enteract.bottblock.com wrote:
> Mortifera <van...@dtc.net> said...
> > What's the easiest way to break into a house? Kill the guy with the
> > key.
>
> > So anyway, I PKed several people, got some good loot. If I had known
> > that PKing was so profitable I would have started doing it long ago!
> > In the total of 5 hours that I was activly PKing, I probably collected
> > 40,000 gold in reagents, armor, and weapons.
>
> And *this* is why I support the idea of "sacrifice to the Gods" upon
> being player-killed, allowing the victim to voluntarily nuke all their
> goods so the PKer can't have them.
>
Jonathan Aitken
And you've heard of this happening how often?
And who gives a toss about your perception of whether you were unfair or not -
its the victims perception I'm interested in.
Otara, Napa
Jonathan Aitken
Because its not only one.
Because it seems some people can only find a way to enjoy a game by making other
people unhappy in it.
Because the amount of work you had to do by killing one person, is often far
outweighed by the work the other player had to do to amass the stuff they lose.
Because the penalties and rewards when YOU get caught, are pathetic in
comparison to the rewards when you are successful.
Because you can escape to the other side of Britain in a second, where noone can
find you.
Because a person on a T1 can defeat or outrun the vast majority of people.
Similarly, most Americans have a large advantage against non-US people - and the
game was sold internationally, so lets not go there.
AFAIK it was never intentionally designed for Pking to be as easy as it
currently is. In roleplaying we call people wankers (or powergamers :) ), when
they exploit known game system weaknesses for unfair advantage over others, or
when they were consistently pissing the rest of the group off by using game
imbalances. Saying 'its in the rules' was always seen as a pretty pathetic
excuse for being an asshole.
Otara, Napa
Drake
Because my friend, its about his little experiment in "pk'n" and its direct
effect on an uninterested party (at least until this asswipe took all of his
stuff).
??
And, what people (term used loosely in Mort's case) "just don't get" is that
alot of us just don't really care to hear those lame stories of "my 10
minutes on the darkside and the character's I ruined!!"
Clinton wrote in message <6lhf78$9rm$2...@argentina.it.earthlink.net>...
James H. Banks
Clinton wrote:
> I'm quite sure that I am one of them. Just what is so bad about one
> character using the _intended_ framework of the game (no cheat, no exploit,
> no mule) to further their own, albeit reprehensible IMO, interests?
>
> Drake wrote in message <6lh9r0$u61$1...@legends.cet.com>...
> <snip>
> >Some people just don't get it.
I think the others have said it pretty well. Strange, but I feel a whole lot
more sympathy for the 'Japanese' guy who got his char killed and posessions
looted than I feel exuberance for such a 'successful' pker. True, it was all
done by the rules. But does that make it right? I guess thats where morality
comes in, isn't it? Even in so little a thing as an on-line game, and non-real
posessions.
GL Glaeken - Lake Superior
James H. Banks
Roman Yazhbin wrote:
> Exuse me, but don't you think that the fact that guards will kill you on
> the sight and no ability to go to towns are good enough to cover the
> "responsibility" bullshit you just typed?
>
Not by a long shot. Thats why moral delinquents like you use mules. Why would
you want to go to town anyway? Can't kill or loot anyone there. Oh yeah, you
probably lurk around the bank and steal stuff, or take it off your accomplices
body. Sorry. Stupid me!
> When I kill with my PK, I don't feel sorry for that asshole that got
> caught in the crossfire and it's clearly his fault that he was carryieng
> the key with him. He had to pay for his stupidity. I am absolutely
> positive that if you would have a chance to loot someone's house you will
> do that without a doubght. Life of PK is not very good and simple compare
> to regular players. It very dangeruos and non-plesuant, so don't you think
> it suppose to be rewarded in some ways? :-)
So ANYONE else in the game is an asshole to you? Interesting.
So just how is someone supposed to get into their house without a key? Sure,
he probably should recall to right outside his door, but maybe he likes to
walk, thinking he might run into someone interesting to talk to on the way.
Not the smartest thing to do, but I could understand that.
By the way, I've actually been INVITED into others houses. Took me aback a
bit, given that I could have just run and hidden, and come back into game when
they weren't there, and looted them. Sure glad I didn't. So, no, not everyone
is a looter.
GL Glaeken
Dennis Heffernan
bizbee wrote in message <35848a81...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
|The game has nothing to do with reality.
It has everything to do with reality. It's a part of the real world,
is it not?
There are no lines. Everything you do in relation to other human beings
speaks to who you are. "It's just a game" cuts no ice -- if you abuse people,
you're an asshole.
|self-righteous prig, that's fine. How about when you find something on
|the side of the road, obviously from a corpse that decayed before the
|owner could get back? I suppose you leave it lying there...after all,
|it <does> belong to someone.
As a matter of fact, today I found a few things lying in the street
in Vesper, obviously from a decayed corpse. The stuff was being grabbed
by looters so I grabbed what I could -- which happened to be two keys --
and then waited to see if the owner showed up. (Yes, I asked the people
looting if any of them were the rightful owner; they weren't. One tried
to fake it but misidentified the keys as belonging to a house and not a
ship.) Rather than try to loot every ship in the area I'm going to hold
on to the keys and see if I can find the rightful owner.
Everyone in the world is not a prick like you, OK?
Dennis F. Heffernan UO: Venture (Catskills) df...@worldnet.att.net
Montclair State U #include <disclaim.h> ICQ:9154048 CompSci/Philosophy
"You bitch about the present and blame it on the past/I'd like to find your
inner child and kick its little ass!" - D. Henley/G. Frey, "Get Over It"
Matt Allan Miller
In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.98060...@wpi.WPI.EDU>,
Roman Yazhbin <rom...@wpi.edu> wrote:
>Exuse me, but don't you think that the fact that guards will kill you on
>the sight and no ability to go to towns are good enough to cover the
>"responsibility" bullshit you just typed?
>
>When I kill with my PK, I don't feel sorry for that asshole that got
>caught in the crossfire and it's clearly his fault that he was carryieng
>the key with him.
What about the person that kills him and loots his house? That person has no control over his actions? And what do you
mean by "asshole"? It isn't an offense against you to carry a key around. He didn't begin the battle, he may have felt
perfectly safe. You've got to carry your key sometime.
>He had to pay for his stupidity.
My your just a ball of anger and resentment, aren't you?
I am absolutely
>positive that if you would have a chance to loot someone's house you will
>do that without a doubght.
Not everyone is an asshole. I've had the chance to loot a house before and I didn't do it.
Life of PK is not very good and simple compare
>to regular players. It very dangeruos and non-plesuant, so don't you think
>it suppose to be rewarded in some ways? :-)
If it's so unpleasent why do you do it? Anyways it doesn't matter how hard it is. Most PKs add nothing to the game and
deserve nothing but punishment.
-Matt Miller
>
___________________________________
Matt Miller
http://pw2.netcom.com/~matmillr
a.a#357
aka Vanir of Sonoma
__________________________________
The Master
bizbee wrote:
> Not to defend the guy, but everyone seems to be forgetting what led up
> to this..... someone stupid enough to carry a key in his pack,
If it weren't for pk'ing, we could carry keys. If it weren't for the lame
idea that houses have to be bustable, we could carry keys. If it....
> You know where he lives. You go to the house
> and the key works.... gee, I'm sure that not a single one of you would
> go in and steal the dumb fuck blind, eh?
By dumb fuck, are you referring to the person who was murdered? Anyway, if I
did have such a key (however I might have come by it), I would not use it
unless it were the place of a pk. I'm sure you don't believe this, but that
just shows what kind of person you are.
> Get off your friggin white
> horses here, guys, and quit being so self-righteous.
No.
> But your argument will be "but he was a PK!" Bullshit. Stealing is
> stealing.... and unless your intention when you loot the PKs house is
> to return all those goods to the masses, you're just as big of a prick
> as the PK was when he stole them.
Not true.
> ....), you're on my permanent shithead list.
Oh gee. Am I, too?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Remove the NOSPAM_ to reply.
The Master
Mortifera wrote:
> It is not as if I had used an exploit to break in. He shouldn't have
Ah, now we get the list of excuses. It was the victim's fault. Sure it was.
--
The Master
greywolf wrote:
> Good post. That is exactly why there are PK'ers out there. I choose not
> to, understanding the profits involved and you chose to go that route. Your
> decision and I can't fault you for that.
I certainly can.
The Master
Clinton wrote:
> Where is it written that it is wrong to take another character's hard-earned
> loot?
Hmmm. How about right here, in this NG. (Now we will get the BUT IT'S IN THE
RULES! bs.)
> I understand, you want to role-play, which is all well and good (and
> quite fun!), but _not everyone does_.
The ones that don't should go back to quake or diablo. Leave something
unfouled.
> Besides, how do you know he won't
> role-play the part of a blackmailer or something and arrange a meeting for
> those characters to get some of their loot back? Now _that_ would be
> exciting!
For the pk, perhaps.
> BTW, my caveat: I have never PK'd, looted or in any way infringed on _what I
> perceive to be_ the right of every individual to pursue their own happiness.
Obviously.
> But then again, I have a very hard time separating my RL values from those
> of the characters I play. Sometimes, I wish it were otherwise...
Go gather up your best Stuff, head out to your favorite pk ambush site, and get
killed and looted. Repeat as necessary. Apparently, getting pk'd is something
you have to experience in order to understand.
Lambert
In article <357c023f....@news-in.dtc.net>, Mortifera
<van...@dtc.net> writes
>Friday, I decided to take my GL master mage out and see what it was
>like to PK. Wearning nothing but a few clothes and with just enough
>reagents that I thought would probably kill somebody (3 each of silk
>and ash, and 8 each of pearl and nightshade).
You can just switch your character from being a great lord to being a PK
like that. Wow you must be a great roleplayer.
>
>After camping out between Minoc and the crossroads for a while, taking
>down a couple of newbies and going to Dread Lord without getting much
>loot, I'm thinking to myself that this isn't so great.
Great, another newbie killer. It can take newbies hours of work to earn
what you could easily buy in a shop. It may have seemed that they had
not much loot to you but to a newbie this could be everything he owns.
I bet you really made the game fun for them.
Tell me, did you speak to them while you killed them?
I doubt it, if you speak to them and they reply, then that makes them
real people right?
>
>So I trot over to the Cove graveyard, and hide out inside the gates.
>Along comes some japanese guy. With a single flamestrike the guy
>falls over flat on his face dead! I walk over to loot his body, and
>among about 50 of each reag, some magic chainmail, and a couple of
>weapons, there is a copper key reading "Safe." I'm thinking "cool"
>now if I can only find what this key goes to.
*snips out a load of stuff some KeWld00d wrote to brag about how much
stuff he looted*
> Now, remember, I've got the guys
>keys so this looting is perfectly legal.
Legal yes,
Moral no.
>
>What's the easiest way to break into a house? Kill the guy with the
>key.
ack!
>
>So anyway, I PKed several people, got some good loot. If I had known
>that PKing was so profitable I would have started doing it long ago!
>In the total of 5 hours that I was activly PKing, I probably collected
>40,000 gold in reagents, armor, and weapons.
How does this make the game more enjoyable for you?
Now you have a whole load of loot, what are you gonna do with it?
How does it enhance your gaming experience?
Well, you really made the game more enjoyable for those people that you
killed didnt you.
Tell me, did you feel even a little guilt while you slaughtered
completeley defenceles newbies just for material gain?
Maybe next time you should think a little about the person that plays
the other character as you utter the words Corp Por.
>
>Anyway, I finally died last night (Sunday) when some guy with high
>resist came and got me with his halberd (wearing no armor, I'm an easy
>target)
So you looted a whole load of armor from this guys house for what
reason?
You dont even wear it!
You looted 100s of reagents but you only carry less than 10 of each?
> But, big deal! People feel sooooo good when they kill a PK,
>but let me tell you for every PK you kill, that PK probably killed 15
>others. Do you really think that PK gives a shit that he dies? It's
>just a minor inconvience.
For the last few weeks I have been anti PKing a lot. Some I win and some
I loose. I have never heard anyone whine like some of these dead pks do.
I always use spirit speak to listen to the ghosts after a battle. I
usually have the intention of gating them to Chaos. Most of them are far
to rude to get a gate anywhere.
They whine about how much stuff they lost, how we cheated, how we are
all gonna die..
I dont kill for the loot or even for the inconvinence it causes the pks.
I kill so they know how it feels each time they kill someone else.
>
>Alas, with the new reputation system, I'll not be PKing anymore.
>
Because you are afraid of loosing something? Your stats?
I see a contradiction in your way of thinking..
Firstly you kill without showing any sign of guilt or remorse.
ie. its only a game, it doesnt matter that these people died and lost
everything they had. Its only a Game.
On the other hand..
You wont risk going out with your armor on and carry only a few of each
reagent. You put serious value on the stuff that you have.
Why do you value this stuff so much if its only a game?
Lambert may truth guide thee
peace follow thee
justice protect thee
Wolfgang Artner
On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 15:43:50 GMT, van...@dtc.net (Mortifera) wrote:
>Friday, I decided to take my GL master mage out and see what it was
>like to PK. Wearning nothing but a few clothes and with just enough
>reagents that I thought would probably kill somebody (3 each of silk
>and ash, and 8 each of pearl and nightshade).
>
>After camping out between Minoc and the crossroads for a while, taking
>down a couple of newbies and going to Dread Lord without getting much
>loot, I'm thinking to myself that this isn't so great.
>
>So I trot over to the Cove graveyard, and hide out inside the gates.
>Along comes some japanese guy. With a single flamestrike the guy
>falls over flat on his face dead! I walk over to loot his body, and
>among about 50 of each reag, some magic chainmail, and a couple of
>weapons, there is a copper key reading "Safe." I'm thinking "cool"
>now if I can only find what this key goes to.
I can´t see something illegal here.I just see a stupid guy who carry
his chest key with him in the wilderness.
The Great Lord Alrik,The Adventurers Circle/Catskill
ICQ 7171592
Wolfgang Artner
First to make clear:I惴 not a PK and never will play one.I was killed
numerous times by Pkæ„€ and lost a lot of stuff in this way.But I never
expected something like morality from an Evil Character.Thats why they
are EVIL.
I also feel with this Japanese guy and I hope he learned his lesson:
Donæ„’ have a walk in the wilderness with your house or chest key in
your bag.
In an fantasy world you canæ„’ expect just good,brave knights.You canæ„’
expect something in real life too <g>
This japanese guy brings me the New York tourist into mind,who wear
his Rolex and big Nikon camera while walking around in the dangerouse
parts of the city at night.
Ingot Head
bizbee wrote in message <35848a81...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
>Your pathetic answer is quite laughable. Do you have a lot of trouble
>seperating reality from fantasy? This is a game pal.
Excuse, I did not get abusive. You did. You may disagree with me,
that is your right. Becoming abusive so quickly simply because
you don't agree with me is a rather juvenile reaction, and speaks
of poor control.
>Better
>comparisons would be
>"He approached the net, so I drove the ball hard to the back corner of
>the court."
>"He dropped his guard, so I punched him in the mouth."
>"The dumbass lost his Queen, so I managed to overpower him and
>checkmate him."
I take issue with the first three. A better anology would be "He approached
the net, so I punched him in the mouth", or "He lost his queen so I drove
his
balls hard to the back corner of the court". It IS just a game, but it is a
FRPG! This isn't Quake2, or doom, or duke3d. I play these games too
and have quite a bit of fun with them. THIS game isn't about pvp though.
Sure pvp is part of it. That's why the guild warfare. Your attitude that
the
whole idea of the game is for us to kill each other it typical of the
problem.
PVP has it's place, but not inflicted on everyone at all times. Others of
us
enjoy the roll playing aspect, and are at a decided disadvantage since
our decisions aren't based on tactical advantage, but on the character's
personality.
>"The ref was asleep, so I stepped on his foot and stole the ball."
This one is exactly the way it is. OSI, being busy with other things,
is our referee, and isn't looking. Doing this stuff is subverting the
purpose of the game, and is as ruining it for a great number of
people. You posting this seems to show that you see nothing
wrong with cheating if the referee isn't looking. This would be
consistent with your profession, but some of us DO see something
wrong with cheating, and won't do so.
>"He bent over to pick up the soap, so I drove it home..." (okay, maybe
>this one doesn't qualify....perhaps I've seen "American Me" too many
>times....).
But this is exactly what happened to the Japanese player. He forgot
himself, and bent over to pick up the soap. The he got F*%$ed.
Your sympathies seem to be with the old Social Darwinian crowd.
"If someone makes a mistake, kick them, rob them, and make sure
they never get up!"
>The game has nothing to do with reality. If you want to role-play a
>self-righteous prig, that's fine. How about when you find something on
>the side of the road, obviously from a corpse that decayed before the
>owner could get back? I suppose you leave it lying there...after all,
>it <does> belong to someone. And now, I'm sure that everyone will say
>this is exactly what they do, right? That's why you see so much stuff
>lying around waiting for the owner to show up...
Um, actually, I don't. I usually, pick it up and hide. You see, I'm
waiting
for someone to show up looking for it, and I don't want people like you
to steal it before they get there. If they don't show up in 15-20 minutes,
I might consider keeping it.
>I love a self-righteous pack of ravenous jackals. Of course none of
>you would ever do this, would you? Funny how I run into so many people
>in the <game> that discuss this type of thing openly, but when
>everyone gets in the newsgroup, they're all little saints.
>"Of course I took his key... I stood waiting there for three days
>before he finally came back, and I was going to give it to him too,
>but he didn't speak English, so fuck him."
Ah! More abuse. You really should see someone about that
repressed anger of yours. It really only seems to come out in the
game, or on your keyboard.
I have a key that belongs to someone else. I've been holding
it for over 2 months, hoping I would run into him. (He's GL Cyan
on Atlantic, in case he's reading this.) This guy is a fairly powerful
character, and I'm sure his house has a lot of good stuff in it, but I
never even considered using the key.
I'm sure you won't believe this. You probably can't even understand
the attitudes that would make someone pass up such a GOLDEN
opportunity to "Stomp on his foot" while the ref wasn't looking.
More's the pity.
Ingot Head
Ron Findling
>I love a self-righteous pack of ravenous jackals. Of course none of
>you would ever do this, would you? Funny how I run into so many people
>in the <game> that discuss this type of thing openly, but when
>everyone gets in the newsgroup, they're all little saints.
>"Of course I took his key... I stood waiting there for three days
>before he finally came back, and I was going to give it to him too,
>but he didn't speak English, so fuck him."
I've never played anyone below neutral.
I've never played a thief.
I've never played a murderer.
I've never looted anyone's house.
I've never used mules to help other characters.
I've never used automated macros to further my characters. If one of
them was beating on a dummy, I was there, doing all the mouse-clicks,
roleplaying with anybody near.
In fact, my main character, Anna McCloud, who I've played some 90% of
the time in UO, has never done *anything* dishonorable, except once
when by accident when she targeted a peaceful Dread Lord with her bow
- but even then she realized what was happening, before she even got a
shot off.
In places like Wind, more times than I can count, she gave back the
possessions of guard-killed people who didn't know the rules there.
She Gates people wherever they want - no charge. All they have to do
is ask politely.
Her typical response when someone says thank you? "If you wish to pay
me back, help someone else who needs it, in the future."
I imagine you're getting someone sick of all the sugar. Well, here's
the icing:
Just before I quit the game (I take a break every few months), she
gave up a friendship of hers when finding out that friend was merely
*associating* with a known murderer (a blue PKer who the friend *used*
to hunt with, and was leaving alone). She couldn't stand to herself be
associated with anyone who would tolerate a murderer for any reason.
She has her faults, but she's no "ravenous jackal."
I'm sorry you're so cynical about UO that you think everyone is.
UbuRex9
Ron Findling wrote:
>She has her faults, but she's no "ravenous jackal."
>
>I'm sorry you're so cynical about UO that you think everyone is.
While I congratulate you on playing a good character consistantly, I think the
previous poster was merely pointing out that self-righteous players on UO seem
to think anyone who strays off the path of virtue is either a) not a
role-player, b) an arsehole, or c) a bug exploiting looter/ pk/ thief.
What made UO boring for me wasn't the lag or the exploits or the cheats or the
anti-social behaviour. Yes, those elements were there and they did detract
from the UO experience, but the major reason I quit UO was because, in my
opinion, there was nothing to do. The only role-playing people were interested
in doing fell into two camps: a) extremely (to a fault) noble and good-hearted
people who gave and gave and gave and basically acted like saints, or b)
blood-thirsty Satan worshipping PKs. There was no room for my assassin
privateer devil-may-care arrogant ex-soldier archer. Not only did people not
care about my history, but they insisted that I play the game their way or no
way at all.
UO is an extremely limited game. Partly because there are the game masters
have such limited powers thus allowing the great majority of players to indulge
in cliches and stereotypes, and partly because the game is set-up in such a way
that compeition between players ruins any sort of character development.
+Ubu Rex+
Ron Findling
>>She has her faults, but she's no "ravenous jackal."
>>
>>I'm sorry you're so cynical about UO that you think everyone is.
>
> While I congratulate you on playing a good character consistantly, I
> think the previous poster was merely pointing out that self-righteous\
> players on UO seem to think anyone who strays off the path of virtue
> is either a) not a role-player, b) an arsehole, or c) a bug exploiting
> looter/ pk/ thief.
Unfortunately, he wasn't "merely" pointing that out:
"Funny how I run into so many people in the <game> that discuss this
type of thing openly, but when everyone gets in the newsgroup, they're
all little saints."
I've tried (at least) to be a "little saint" with my Anna McCloud,
character in game, too. I don't just talk about it in this newsgroup.
(Note I'm not boasting, she *hasn't* been a saint at all, due to her
other flaws, but these have to do with aspects of her personality and
not the actions she's taken)
Note I totally understand him feeling that way if hypocrites are
really all he's run into while playing UO, but I was unfairly tarred
with that brush, so decided to counter what he wrote.
> The only role-playing people were interested in doing fell into two
> camps: a) extremely (to a fault) noble and good-hearted people who
> gave and gave and gave and basically acted like saints, or b)
> blood-thirsty Satan worshipping PKs. There was no room for my assassin
> privateer devil-may-care arrogant ex-soldier archer.
Of course not. Why would you expect there would be? This isn't a game
where you're just roleplaying your evil character against the computer
or (in the case of pen and paper RPGs) against Game/Dungeon-Master
controlled opponents. You're up against other real people.
And in real-life, and even when roleplaying properly in a game like
this, the vast majority of people and the characters they play would
naturally be very hostile towards evil. That's what "good vs. evil" is
*about.*
> Not only did people not care about my history, but they insisted that I
> play the game their way or no way at all.
Assuming they knew your character was evil ahead of time, they have
little reason to care about his history. I know (for example) that my
Anna McCloud character, who I did roleplay, and as a "virtuous"
person, would not be interested in an evil person's "story," no matter
how interesting, no matter how well roleplayed.
At best she'd just walk away, or (next step up) give your character a
stern lecture. At worst (for you), she'd try to show what the "virtue"
of *Justice* is really all about.
Considering most characters are also at least nominally "good," why
would you expect any other sort of reaction?
Legion
>Exuse me, but don't you think that the fact that guards will kill you on
>the sight and no ability to go to towns are good enough to cover the
>"responsibility" bullshit you just typed?
>
>When I kill with my PK, I don't feel sorry for that asshole that got
>caught in the crossfire and it's clearly his fault that he was carryieng
>positive that if you would have a chance to loot someone's house you will
>to regular players. It very dangeruos and non-plesuant, so don't you think
>it suppose to be rewarded in some ways? :-)
Wow, I am really torn here. I have to say that if you are in the
graveyard with your key on you, you aren't very smart. Does that mean
he should have done what he did? Judgement call there. I think I
would have extorted him and made him buy his key back and left it like
that. Not looted the hell out of him, but that is me. If you just
killed him, said nothing and looted him, then you are not in the
spirit of Ultima. If you can justify it rationally, I have less of a
problem with it.
I do have a PK that I use from time to time. Saturday night my PK and
one other (I hate pk hit squads) executed a guy near Destard. Upon
looting his corpse we found a vendor deed and a lot of his items were
the sign of a newer player. He came back after finding a healer in
the forest and we gave about 80% of his stuff back including the deed.
Also, we never take runes. Keys? I make a call on that on a case by
case basis.
And yes, we did roleplay for those non-believers out there.
Jaquar - Lake Superior
(it's a Q not a G)
Reavers Website : http://www.huneyvaughn.com/reavers
Legion
> What about the person that kills him and loots his house? That person has no control over his actions? And what do you
>mean by "asshole"? It isn't an offense against you to carry a key around. He didn't begin the battle, he may have felt
>perfectly safe. You've got to carry your key sometime.
You are absolutely wrong here. You NEVER have to carry your key
around with you. I own more than one house and I'll tell you, the
best shot a pk has at Jaq is to get a rune somewhere in vicinity of
her house. Keep keys in the bank or on a keyring on your vendor.
Legion
>Mortifera wrote:
>
>> It is not as if I had used an exploit to break in. He shouldn't have
>
>Ah, now we get the list of excuses. It was the victim's fault. Sure it was.
Ugh. Is this guy prettending not to be a murderer?
Legion
On 8 Jun 1998 17:09:12 -0400, jwa...@paladin.cc.emory.edu (John
Wagner) wrote:
>Drake (a...@cet.com) wrote:
>: Well, I'm sure this "japanese" player you pk'd and looted to the moon will
>: be happy to know your'e done pk'n after the new rep is implemented.
>
> Interestingly, after the 'new rep system' begins all these macrod
>GL ex-PKs will be laughing at all of their victims. Meanwhile people who
>accidentally discharged an earthquake scroll in town, attacked noto pks
>or EVers, or bards who misclicked in provoke, yet don't use macros on
>principal, will be labeled as 'dastardly' or 'dishonorable'. Really
>quite amusing. I dont suppose Origin actually has a neutral-blue kill
>count on record? Could be useful to be secretly tallying all those
>EV player kills for when they convert over.
>
> John Wagner, Moonbat, ii, cats, benUziel, Ches, xor GL
Not all of them will be laughing. Remember we can kill them in the
new system. We just need to watch our murder count.
Legion
>bizbee wrote:
>
>> Not to defend the guy, but everyone seems to be forgetting what led up
>> to this..... someone stupid enough to carry a key in his pack,
>
> If it weren't for pk'ing, we could carry keys. If it weren't for the lame
>idea that houses have to be bustable, we could carry keys. If it....
Let us not forget in the world of UO you have Daemons, Drakes,
Dragons, Blood Elementals, etc. Would you take your only house key to
the bottom of Hyloth or Destard? Of course not. PKing is a problem
because there are so many Arcade Player Killers out there that they
make it impossible to be a roleplaying PK without being lobbed in with
the rest. May I remind everyone we are on the brink of a new system?
Legion
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:20:51 +0100, Lambert <s...@rford.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>In article <357c023f....@news-in.dtc.net>, Mortifera
><van...@dtc.net> writes
>>Friday, I decided to take my GL master mage out and see what it was
>>like to PK. Wearning nothing but a few clothes and with just enough
>>reagents that I thought would probably kill somebody (3 each of silk
>>and ash, and 8 each of pearl and nightshade).
>
>You can just switch your character from being a great lord to being a PK
>like that. Wow you must be a great roleplayer.
I must say this is one helluva point. My GL could never ever turn.
Ron Findling
> You are absolutely wrong here. You NEVER have to carry your key
> around with you.
Presumably because you just Recall to where your house is, right?
Ever see the UO intro about how most people shunned magic because it
could "corrupt the soul?"
What if someone (God forbid) actually decided to roleplay this? Or
just decided their idea of their character doesn't include them
knowing any magic?
I guess only mages should be allowed to own houses, then.
Sigh.... :-(
rend
Well said, Ingot Head! It's amazing how people will try to justify
being assholes, like Mortifera does here. UO really does test our
commitment to upholding the virtues. Mortifera has failed that test.
Mortifera, you could have returned the key without looting, taught the
player a lesson, made a friend, and done a good deed. Instead, you
enrich yourself materially, at the expense of your soul.
Mortifera, you're a jerk, and you're so clueless that you came here to
brag about it.
Sheesh!
I suppose the next thing Mortifera will say is "It's only a game. What
I do in the game doesn't represent what sort of person I am." UO gives
us choices in how we behave, and the choices we make does say much about
what sort of person we are. Many will deny this, because they don't
like what it says about themselves, but it's true. I'm not referring to
role-playing evil characters, I mean the "cheating, exploiting,
obnoxious, racist, greedy, selfish, etc" players that infest this
virtual world. The sort of people we avoid in the real world.
rend
Ingot Head wrote:
>
> Mortifera wrote in message <357c38e5....@news-in.dtc.net>...
>
> >It is not as if I had used an exploit to break in. He shouldn't have
Clinton
Buddy, if you think I haven't been Pk'd before...man, are you off base! :)
I've been looted, killed, raped and dismembered on more than one occasion.
It is, partly, why I am the "Defender of the Herd," wreaking the vengeance
of the newbies on the Dread hordes. I did not like to be PK'd. I also
don't like losing North America in "Risk." So what?
What is wrong with the "it's in the rules" argument? Why are people so
averse to playing the game as it's laid out? It seems to me that you would
be the one who, if he/she doesn't like this game, would move on to another
one more compatible with your interests. Why do you associate a PK-free
environment with an "unfouled" one? What was so pristine about UO that PvP
fouls it???
The Master wrote in message <357CFCF2...@uswest.net>...
Clinton
So if he _was_ role-playing an evil character, what he did would have been
okay with you?
Wouldn't a role-playing evil character necessarily _have_ to be greedy and
selfish?
Aren't we _all_ selfish anyway? Just because your compensation comes in the
form of warm and fuzzy feelings doesn't make you any less selfish.
BTW, and I am _not_ making this up, it really is a game. Really. More
complex, more detailed and more involved than many other games, yes, but no
less a game for all of that.
rend wrote in message <357D4DB6...@ames.net>...
<snip>
Clinton
The _whole_ idea of the game is to make of it what _you_ will. Here's what
I don't get. If role-players care more about their personalities and what
they _would_ do rather than what's _best_, why be surprised and upset when
you lose sometimes? What does stuff matter to a role-player, anyway? Maybe
you're role-playing an acquisitive character, but then wouldn't that
character make decisions to optimize their "stuff retention?"
Ingot Head wrote in message ...
<snip>
>Sure pvp is part of it. That's why the guild warfare. Your attitude that
>the
>whole idea of the game is for us to kill each other it typical of the
>problem.
>PVP has it's place, but not inflicted on everyone at all times. Others of
>us
>enjoy the roll playing aspect, and are at a decided disadvantage since
>our decisions aren't based on tactical advantage, but on the character's
>personality.
<snip>
>Ingot Head
>
>
Clinton
Just because we feel for the victim doesn't make his attacker "wrong." UO
was intended, in part, as a PvP arena, no? That makes what the attacker did
completely acceptable. I find it atrocious, but also acceptable.
James H. Banks wrote in message <357C8249...@swbell.net>...
>
>
> I think the others have said it pretty well. Strange, but I feel a whole
lot
>more sympathy for the 'Japanese' guy who got his char killed and posessions
>looted than I feel exuberance for such a 'successful' pker. True, it was
all
>done by the rules. But does that make it right? I guess thats where
morality
>comes in, isn't it? Even in so little a thing as an on-line game, and
non-real
>posessions.
>
>GL Glaeken - Lake Superior
>
Ingot Head
Clinton wrote in message <6ljp4g$irf$1...@ecuador.it.earthlink.net>...
>The _whole_ idea of the game is to make of it what _you_ will. Here's what
>I don't get. If role-players care more about their personalities and what
>they _would_ do rather than what's _best_, why be surprised and upset when
>you lose sometimes? What does stuff matter to a role-player, anyway?
Maybe
>you're role-playing an acquisitive character, but then wouldn't that
>character make decisions to optimize their "stuff retention?"
Alright, I have a character. I role-play, which means I spend as much
time talking and using the social aspects of the game as the tactical
ones. Since its BORING to role play someone that never leaves town,
I eventually will want to adventure a bit. My character leaves town to
hunt, and BAM - he's dead and "Kewl Dewd" is saying "U Suk". I have
been playing for over 6 months, and I've NEVER left town without
eventually having to run and hide from a pker. (other than on my boat
but I'm sure they'll find this eventually.)
Since the PKiller's main ambition is killing other characters, it doesn't
take many of them (maybe 1/4) and the rest of us are completely
hemmed in. In addition, since pkers kill and steal the fruits of other
characters' labor, they have the best equipment.
If I decide to become a powerful anti-pk, I need practice, but I can't
practice without being pk'd. I need better equipment, but I can't find
it without going to a dungeon, and I've been pk'd better than half the
times I've visited a dungeon, and I NEVER got finished with even the
first level without dying or being chased out by a pk.
Even if these disadvantages didn't matter, the tactics used by the pkers
give them a gross advantage. Usually, if your character isn't a newbie,
the pker will wait until you're halfway down in health. I've had them fight
alongside me until the time is right, and victory is certain. (Either I'm
badly hurt, or we run into friends of his that help...) Contrary to popular
belief, the guy who fights dirty usually wins.
The position We're being put in is one of either playing their game their
way (which is not how the game was designed), or staying confined to
town banging out plate mail and make crossbows. You can try to fight
back but THEY HAVE ALL THE POWERFUL EQUIPMENT! Not only
that, THEY CONTROL ACCESS TO NEW EQUIPMENT!
In other words, surviving in a pvp world is a full time job of acquiring
power, and avoiding danger, against other players. SOME OF US
DON'T WANT TO PLAY THIS WAY! We are being forced to play
the game in pker manner in order to survive, but playing like this
RUINS THE GAME FOR US! To US it feels like the game is
being held captive by a bunch Quake2 idiots that don't understand
the first thing about what a Role playing game is about.
Clinton
Why is that? Oh, that's right, you're a sanctimonious jerk who's only
interested in hearing opinions that support his own value system.
With that out of the way...
Why on earth did you find it necessary to attempt to besmirch me? And what
is it about the victim's perception that relates to the fairness of
Mortifera's actions? The objective truth, like it or not, is that UO allows
and is even designed for PvP activity.
Jonathan Aitken wrote in message <357c6774...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
>And you've heard of this happening how often?
>
>And who gives a toss about your perception of whether you were unfair or
not -
>its the victims perception I'm interested in.
>
>Otara, Napa
>
>
>"Clinton" <ccprossnos...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>. Besides, how do you know he won't
>>role-play the part of a blackmailer or something and arrange a meeting for
>>those characters to get some of their loot back? Now _that_ would be
>>exciting!
>>
>>BTW, my caveat: I have never PK'd, looted or in any way infringed on _what
I
>>perceive to be_ the right of every individual to pursue their own
happiness.
ti...@enteract.bottblock.com
bizbee <tub...@ix.netcom.com> said...
> "He approached the net, so I drove the ball hard to the back corner of
> the court."
Fair.
> "He dropped his guard, so I punched him in the mouth."
Assuming you're talking a boxing metaphor here, fair.
> "The dumbass lost his Queen, so I managed to overpower him and
> checkmate him."
Fair.
> "The ref was asleep, so I stepped on his foot and stole the ball."
Foul. Taking advantage of something against the spirit or letter of the
game *because you know the "ref" isn't looking and you can get away with
it* is reprehensible.
But then I don't expect the majority of PKers to understand this. Or the
macroers. Or the bug exploiters.
Tirya
Farren, Apprentice Miner, Catskills
Slay
Yeah and don't you just hate people who won't play
C&C with you if you attack their harvesters?
ARRRRGHHHH!
Um, well anyways, I think Clinton makes a good point.
Roman Yazhbin
On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, russell wrote:
>
>
> Roman Yazhbin wrote:
>
> > Exuse me, but don't you think that the fact that guards will kill you on
> > the sight and no ability to go to towns are good enough to cover the
> > "responsibility" bullshit you just typed?
> >
> > When I kill with my PK, I don't feel sorry for that asshole that got
> > caught in the crossfire and it's clearly his fault that he was carryieng
> > the key with him. He had to pay for his stupidity. I am absolutely
> > positive that if you would have a chance to loot someone's house you will
> > do that without a doubght. Life of PK is not very good and simple compare
> > to regular players. It very dangeruos and non-plesuant, so don't you think
> > it suppose to be rewarded in some ways? :-)
>
> No, excuse ME! I don't think that those restrictions do anything to "cover
> the resposibilty". And let me tell you something else, asshole, I would not
> loot a house if given the opportunity, with the possible exception of knowing
> that it belonged to some Quake-Head punk like you. In fact, I have even
> returned a discovered key to house to it's owner! So fuck you, don't even
> think about projecting your lack of morals or ethics or honor onto anyone
> else.
>
Ok, you exused...:)
As I said before in one of my posts on this NG:
They can only keep trolling, but they can't do anything about it.
You are exactly the one I wrote about.
I never played Quake, but I know how to do it.
That game is just stupid, UO is much better, more opportunities,
more tactical advantages and stratigical play and more assholes
like you who think that they are tough guys unless they meet me....
Dundee
>So if he _was_ role-playing an evil character, what he did would have been
>okay with you?
This is why I hate roleplaying.
I'm a real person.
I'm willing to pretend, or at least suspend disbelief, that the
'virtual world' is somewhat real - I won't eat rat or dog meat for
example, even though I know that the little rib-graphic is the same
thing I'd get from a bird or cow - and I don't shoot my pets with
arrows, even though *I* know they aren't REAL animals.
But I'm not going to pretend to be someone that I'm not. Not "Joe
Blow the Saintly Pacifist" nor "Dirk The Evil Vampire That Likes To
Torture Babies".
And frankly, I don't altogether much like even talking to people that
are roleplaying, because it meakes me feel like I'm not talking to a
real person - just whatever person they are "pretending" to be.
To heck with it. Roleplaying doesn't work in multiplayer online
games. Anonymity and the ability to "be someone else" in five minutes
time is the root cause of the antisocial behavior that most people are
talking about - and it wouldn't happen if you got ONE "character",
that character was YOU, and you never got to change your name.
Act right. Treat your fellow human beings the same way you want to be
treated.
And if you don't, then don't be surprised then they seem not to like
you.
Doesn't matter whether you're REALLY antisocial or just PRETENDING to
be antisocial. "I'm roleplaying" has become as much an excuse as
"It's only a game!"
Rant mode off.
heheh
--
Dundee of Lake Superior - Skep...@SPAMISantisocial.com
Townstone proposal and Other Stuff:
http://dundee.uong.com
Roman Yazhbin
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Matt Allan Miller wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.98060...@wpi.WPI.EDU>,
> Roman Yazhbin <rom...@wpi.edu> wrote:
> >Exuse me, but don't you think that the fact that guards will kill you on
> >the sight and no ability to go to towns are good enough to cover the
> >"responsibility" bullshit you just typed?
> >
> >When I kill with my PK, I don't feel sorry for that asshole that got
> >caught in the crossfire and it's clearly his fault that he was carryieng
> >the key with him.
>
> What about the person that kills him and loots his house? That person has no control over his actions? And what do you
> mean by "asshole"? It isn't an offense against you to carry a key around. He didn't begin the battle, he may have felt
> perfectly safe. You've got to carry your key sometime.
You mean that poor Japanise kid? Oh, surely, he suffered. So to cover his
expences I will unload my tower and bring everything down to him.
No really, are you that stupid or you just pretending to be like that?
I never met a guy in the game who would mind to loot someone's house.
When I was not a PK yet, but a noble Noble Lord, I was trying to be good
to everybody.... Did not work. This game is not about playing a good guy,
but it's about a competition. You lost the competition, you pay for it.
>
> >He had to pay for his stupidity.
>
> My your just a ball of anger and resentment, aren't you?
I am very angry player.... Grrrr...
You have to remember that I am the Dread Lord, the bad guy.
>
> I am absolutely
> >positive that if you would have a chance to loot someone's house you will
> >do that without a doubght.
>
> Not everyone is an asshole. I've had the chance to loot a house before and I didn't do it.
>
> Life of PK is not very good and simple compare
> >to regular players. It very dangeruos and non-plesuant, so don't you think
> >it suppose to be rewarded in some ways? :-)
>
> If it's so unpleasent why do you do it? Anyways it doesn't matter how hard it is. Most PKs add nothing to the game and
> deserve nothing but punishment.
> -Matt Miller
Because it's my job to keep all mules scared.
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> Matt Miller
> http://pw2.netcom.com/~matmillr
> a.a#357
> aka Vanir of Sonoma
> __________________________________
>
>
Clinton
Jonathan Aitken wrote in message <357c674b...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
>Because its not only one.
huh?
>Because it seems some people can only find a way to enjoy a game by making
other
>people unhappy in it.
So what? In a game that supports it, it's not wrong. Sad, yes. But wrong?
Hardly.
>Because the amount of work you had to do by killing one person, is often
far
>outweighed by the work the other player had to do to amass the stuff they
lose.
>
>Because the penalties and rewards when YOU get caught, are pathetic in
>comparison to the rewards when you are successful.
>
This is the reason most people are not PKs:
Good_Feelings - Loot_Lost_To_PKs > Bad_Feelings +
Loot_Gained_From_PK_Victims
The rewards for not PKing _far_ outweigh the rewards for PKing.
>Because you can escape to the other side of Britain in a second, where
noone can
>find you.
Also true for PK victims.
>
>Because a person on a T1 can defeat or outrun the vast majority of people.
>Similarly, most Americans have a large advantage against non-US people -
and the
>game was sold internationally, so lets not go there.
Yes, and this is unfortunate. I play on a 28.8 connection and have had
others run rings around me. Again, so what? I'm also smarter than 95% of
the people in UO, does this mean I should hobble my brain somehow to be
fair?
>
>AFAIK it was never intentionally designed for Pking to be as easy as it
>currently is. In roleplaying we call people wankers (or powergamers :) ),
when
>they exploit known game system weaknesses for unfair advantage over others,
or
>when they were consistently pissing the rest of the group off by using game
>imbalances. Saying 'its in the rules' was always seen as a pretty pathetic
>excuse for being an asshole.
I think you're confusing what you would like UO to look like with what it
actually is. The fact that you call certain people "wankers" and
"powergamers" in no way means that they are wrong to behave as they do. As
long as it is within the confines of the game of UO to destroy another
player's character and take that character's possessions it cannot be said
to be wrong to do so.
>
>Otara, Napa
>
>
> "Clinton" <ccprossnos...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
Clinton
How is it not designed that way? Providing the Dread isn't exploiting,
muling or downright cheating, I don't see how you can say that. You may not
like it. I find it rather exciting. So what? The point is that this is
what UO, at present, is.
Ingot Head wrote in message
>
<snip>
Clinton
Ingot Head
Clinton wrote in message <6lk0fs$a2d$1...@argentina.it.earthlink.net>...
>How is it not designed that way? Providing the Dread isn't exploiting,
>muling or downright cheating, I don't see how you can say that. You may
not
>like it. I find it rather exciting. So what? The point is that this is
>what UO, at present, is.
And your assertion is that anything that is not specifically denied is ok?
By that philosophy, we would NEVER have developed any laws. "Oh
HELL! Caine killed Abel! Well, nobody ever said he couldn't so I guess
it's ok. What? Make a rule against it? I JUST SAID it must be ok since
nobody ELSE ever made a rule against it!!!"
Again, it's a ROLE PLAYING GAME! The idea is more social than it
is tactical. Isn't the text that floats over people's head nice? Good
programming that. OSI went through a lot of trouble to do that. Diablo
just had messages on the screen like Quake, or Doom. I wonder why
OSI did that? Probably because THEY WANT THE CHARACTERS
TO TALK TO EACH OTHER! The average pk'ers full vocabulary is
"Corp Por".
I don't believe that all pvp is bad, but at the present levels, it forces
those
who joined for other aspects of the game to play the pker way in order
to survive. Personally, I think the coming guild system is a great idea.
Those who want pvp so bad, can join guilds, and kill each other to their
hearts content. Hell, I may join one after awhile, it'd be fun to have a
pvp char. People that want to role play, adventure, and maybe even
just converse can do so.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to pvp. I'm saying that you shouldn't
be able to pvp everyone indiscriminately, and force the entire Ultima
Online world to play the game your way.
Ingot Head
Roman Yazhbin
I am fully agree with you. Some morons can't really understand that if
someone likes to play a bad guy it should involve "bad" actions.
Now if I kill someone and than leave all of his stuff on the body. He will
res and come back and get all his stuff back. Will he remeber me? Will he
remember my act of agression? I am absolutely positive that he will forget
about me on the next day.
But if I would get all his stuff and the key to the house, he will
remember me for long time. but because he can't fight back he will go
to the rec.games.computer.ultima.online and start trolling about how much
he hates me.
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Clinton wrote:
> Why is that? Oh, that's right, you're a sanctimonious jerk who's only
> interested in hearing opinions that support his own value system.
>
> With that out of the way...
>
> Why on earth did you find it necessary to attempt to besmirch me? And what
> is it about the victim's perception that relates to the fairness of
> Mortifera's actions? The objective truth, like it or not, is that UO allows
> and is even designed for PvP activity.
>
> Jonathan Aitken wrote in message <357c6774...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
> >And you've heard of this happening how often?
> >
> >And who gives a toss about your perception of whether you were unfair or
> not -
> >its the victims perception I'm interested in.
> >
> >Otara, Napa
> >
> >
> >"Clinton" <ccprossnos...@earthlink.net> wrote:
J Aitken
Raped? Some people use that word awfully loosely.
There was a famous cricket game in Australia once, where a person used an
archaic form of bowling, in order to make it impossible for the other side to
win. It was pretty much universally seen as an incredibly unsportsmanlike act,
even tho it was 'in the rules'. Given the complexity of any game like UO, and
the likelihood that game imbalances will exist, this claim in itself is not a
sufficent excuse.
For instance, it was also intended that the bounty system work - it didnt,
making PKing much easier than it might otherwise have been, as the economic
incentives were no longer there for people to hunt PK's. It was not expected
that recall would become so universal. Etc.
Otara, Napa
Clinton
Your position seems to be that UO's status as an RPG somehow elevates it
above the normal rules one would apply when playing a game. I regret to
inform you that this is simply irrational. Regardless of what your idea of
what an RPG is, or even what they are in general, UO is what it is. If it
is an RPG, then you need to reevaluate your idea of what an RPG is. If it
is not an RPG, then your arguments against PvP are necessarily invalid. The
degree to which you enjoy the game cannot be the standard by which you judge
the actions of others.
I understand your position. I mean, there is no rule in Risk that
specifically states that I may not punch my opponent in the mouth and yet it
is understood that this would be against the spirit of the game. I'm
guessing that you would place PvP in UO in this category? The difference, I
think, is that physical violence has no framework in Risk and is thus
rightfully understood as not belonging. PvP, however, has a very definite
structure in UO and no rule prohibiting it. PvP must, therefore, be
acceptable within the current UO.
With you, I am greatly looking forward to the new guild war system as I too
believe that I will enjoy UO more without quite so much indisciminate
killing.
Ingot Head wrote in message ...
Clinton
Good point about that cricket match. I guess I would call that an exploit
(like silent casting) which I will agree violates the intent of the game.
Creative? Yes. Unsportsmanlike? Yes. Wrong? Yes. However, had that
bowler been able to naturally pitch the ball at 300 mph, would he have been
wrong to do so? No.
I use the word "raped" because the juvenile PKer "bowing" over my
dismembered corpse used it. Repeatedly.
J Aitken wrote in message <357da0b...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
J Aitken
"Clinton" <ccprossnos...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>Because it seems some people can only find a way to enjoy a game by making
>other
>>people unhappy in it.
>
>So what? In a game that supports it, it's not wrong. Sad, yes. But wrong?
>Hardly.
Camping in quake? It's not 'wrong' but it's not popular, to say the least.
I guess we disagree and theres not much point in continuing this discussion.
All games 'support' this - but it happens much less often in RL because there
are consequences to being obnoxious - people stop playing with you, give you
feedback, and/or you get kicked out of the game. Its the anonymity of the
internet that makes this possible, and nothing else. DD has made it clear that
he does not support the frequency of the PK style that I am talking about here,
and intends to try to change the system to make PKing less frequent, generally
more consensual, and for there to be real costs to PKing. That in itself makes
it clear to me that what we are talking about is seen as a problem, and that
attempts will be made to fix it. Whether it will work is another story.
Otara, Napa
Roman Yazhbin
On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, James H. Banks wrote:
>
>
> Roman Yazhbin wrote:
>
> > Exuse me, but don't you think that the fact that guards will kill you on
> > the sight and no ability to go to towns are good enough to cover the
> > "responsibility" bullshit you just typed?
> >
>
> Not by a long shot. Thats why moral delinquents like you use mules. Why would
> you want to go to town anyway? Can't kill or loot anyone there. Oh yeah, you
> probably lurk around the bank and steal stuff, or take it off your accomplices
> body. Sorry. Stupid me!
Why you people always want to make yourself look like you are way smarter
than me? Does it make you feel good?
>
> > When I kill with my PK, I don't feel sorry for that asshole that got
> > caught in the crossfire and it's clearly his fault that he was carryieng
> > the key with him. He had to pay for his stupidity. I am absolutely
> > positive that if you would have a chance to loot someone's house you will
> > do that without a doubght. Life of PK is not very good and simple compare
> > to regular players. It very dangeruos and non-plesuant, so don't you think
> > it suppose to be rewarded in some ways? :-)
>
>
> So ANYONE else in the game is an asshole to you? Interesting.
> So just how is someone supposed to get into their house without a key? Sure,
> he probably should recall to right outside his door, but maybe he likes to
> walk, thinking he might run into someone interesting to talk to on the way.
> Not the smartest thing to do, but I could understand that.
> By the way, I've actually been INVITED into others houses. Took me aback a
> bit, given that I could have just run and hidden, and come back into game when
> they weren't there, and looted them. Sure glad I didn't. So, no, not everyone
> is a looter.
>
> GL Glaeken
Yes, everyone is an arsehole. Dreads of my guild are the only good pople
in the game for me.
Ok, what skill do you use to make money in the game? Blacksmith? Tailor?
According to your monolog here it would be better for you to switch to
tinkering or veterinary. So other players would not be offended by your wealth,
because looting is making money and if you not looting, than you not
getting any of it. So your atempt for makeing me feel guilty for looting
just because you got the right personality and you don't loot is as stupid
as changing from tailoring to veterinary just to make other suffer less
because they are not smart enough to change their profession.
So you can now enjoy thinking about how good you are same as those jerks
who always want to make everything looking politicaly correct.
Roman Yazhbin
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Legion wrote:
> >Exuse me, but don't you think that the fact that guards will kill you on
> >the sight and no ability to go to towns are good enough to cover the
> >"responsibility" bullshit you just typed?
> >
> >When I kill with my PK, I don't feel sorry for that asshole that got
> >caught in the crossfire and it's clearly his fault that he was carryieng
> >the key with him. He had to pay for his stupidity. I am absolutely
> >positive that if you would have a chance to loot someone's house you will
> >do that without a doubght. Life of PK is not very good and simple compare
> >to regular players. It very dangeruos and non-plesuant, so don't you think
> >it suppose to be rewarded in some ways? :-)
>
> Wow, I am really torn here. I have to say that if you are in the
> graveyard with your key on you, you aren't very smart. Does that mean
> he should have done what he did? Judgement call there. I think I
> would have extorted him and made him buy his key back and left it like
> that. Not looted the hell out of him, but that is me. If you just
> killed him, said nothing and looted him, then you are not in the
> spirit of Ultima. If you can justify it rationally, I have less of a
> problem with it.
Sprit of Ultima? You mean that stuff that someone dares to call RPG?
When a bunch of lowlifes trying to pretend that they are good guys and
kill anyhting on the sight that they consider "red"? What is the spirit
of this game? Pay $60 for a CD than $10 a month for inviting stories about
heros and batles? Thanks but I can do it without paying.
>
> I do have a PK that I use from time to time. Saturday night my PK and
> one other (I hate pk hit squads) executed a guy near Destard. Upon
> looting his corpse we found a vendor deed and a lot of his items were
> the sign of a newer player. He came back after finding a healer in
> the forest and we gave about 80% of his stuff back including the deed.
> Also, we never take runes. Keys? I make a call on that on a case by
> case basis.
>
> And yes, we did roleplay for those non-believers out there.
>
Did ever heart of Dread Warfares? That's what I call a roleplaying.
Not like a bunch of internet chaters who meet at the bank and all of
their RP ends up in some ARTs and THOUs and giving out some stuff for
newbies.
Clinton
Here here! I completely support any and all attempts to make PvP more
"realistic." In the meantime, we shall disagree over the "rightness" of PvP
as it is now and not, I suspect, be any the worse for it!
J Aitken wrote in message <357da3b8...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
Matt Allan Miller
>
>
>On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, James H. Banks wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Roman Yazhbin wrote:
>>
>> > Exuse me, but don't you think that the fact that guards will kill you on
>> > the sight and no ability to go to towns are good enough to cover the
>> > "responsibility" bullshit you just typed?
>> >
>>
>> Not by a long shot. Thats why moral delinquents like you use mules. Why would
>> you want to go to town anyway? Can't kill or loot anyone there. Oh yeah, you
>> probably lurk around the bank and steal stuff, or take it off your accomplices
>> body. Sorry. Stupid me!
>
>
>Why you people always want to make yourself look like you are way smarter
>than me? Does it make you feel good?
Feeling inadequate? I don't really see anyone straining to make themselves look better than you.
>
>
>>
>> > When I kill with my PK, I don't feel sorry for that asshole that got
>> > caught in the crossfire and it's clearly his fault that he was carryieng
>> > the key with him. He had to pay for his stupidity. I am absolutely
>> > positive that if you would have a chance to loot someone's house you will
>> > do that without a doubght. Life of PK is not very good and simple compare
>> > to regular players. It very dangeruos and non-plesuant, so don't you think
>> > it suppose to be rewarded in some ways? :-)
>>
>>
>> So ANYONE else in the game is an asshole to you? Interesting.
>> So just how is someone supposed to get into their house without a key? Sure,
>> he probably should recall to right outside his door, but maybe he likes to
>> walk, thinking he might run into someone interesting to talk to on the way.
>> Not the smartest thing to do, but I could understand that.
>> By the way, I've actually been INVITED into others houses. Took me aback a
>> bit, given that I could have just run and hidden, and come back into game when
>> they weren't there, and looted them. Sure glad I didn't. So, no, not everyone
>> is a looter.
>>
>> GL Glaeken
>
>Yes, everyone is an arsehole. Dreads of my guild are the only good pople
>in the game for me.
Projection and rationalization all rolled into one, amazing!
>Ok, what skill do you use to make money in the game? Blacksmith? Tailor?
>According to your monolog here it would be better for you to switch to
>tinkering or veterinary. So other players would not be offended by your wealth,
>because looting is making money and if you not looting, than you not
>getting any of it. So your atempt for makeing me feel guilty for looting
>just because you got the right personality and you don't loot is as stupid
>as changing from tailoring to veterinary just to make other suffer less
>because they are not smart enough to change their profession.
Nobody said anything about offending someone else with your wealth. Try sticking with the argument.
>
>So you can now enjoy thinking about how good you are same as those jerks
>who always want to make everything looking politicaly correct.
And you can enjoy thinking about all the people you killed, looted, and generally took advantage of just like those
jerks who are always screwing over everyone around them for the slightest bit of gain.
-Matt Miller
___________________________________
Matt Miller
http://pw2.netcom.com/~matmillr
a.a#357
aka Lord Vanir of Sonoma
__________________________________
Dennis Heffernan
Clinton wrote in message <6ljvp3$9io$1...@argentina.it.earthlink.net>...
|"powergamers" in no way means that they are wrong to behave as they do. As
|long as it is within the confines of the game of UO to destroy another
|player's character and take that character's possessions it cannot be said
|to be wrong to do so.
Oh yes it can. The status quo does not justify itself by its mere
existence.
Dennis F. Heffernan UO: Venture (Catskills) df...@worldnet.att.net
Montclair State U #include <disclaim.h> ICQ:9154048 CompSci/Philosophy
"You bitch about the present and blame it on the past/I'd like to find your
inner child and kick its little ass!" - D. Henley/G. Frey, "Get Over It"
Dennis Heffernan
Clinton wrote in message <6lk030$9q2$1...@argentina.it.earthlink.net>...
|like it. I find it rather exciting. So what? The point is that this is
|what UO, at present, is.
No, the point is that it is not what UO, ever, should be.
Roman Yazhbin
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Matt Allan Miller wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.98060...@wpi.WPI.EDU>,
> Roman Yazhbin <rom...@wpi.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, James H. Banks wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Roman Yazhbin wrote:
> >>
> >> > Exuse me, but don't you think that the fact that guards will kill you on
> >> > the sight and no ability to go to towns are good enough to cover the
> >> > "responsibility" bullshit you just typed?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Not by a long shot. Thats why moral delinquents like you use mules. Why would
> >> you want to go to town anyway? Can't kill or loot anyone there. Oh yeah, you
> >> probably lurk around the bank and steal stuff, or take it off your accomplices
> >> body. Sorry. Stupid me!
> >
> >
> >Why you people always want to make yourself look like you are way smarter
> >than me? Does it make you feel good?
>
> Feeling inadequate? I don't really see anyone straining to make themselves look better than you.
Than read this post again unless you think that you are the smartass too.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> > When I kill with my PK, I don't feel sorry for that asshole that got
> >> > caught in the crossfire and it's clearly his fault that he was carryieng
> >> > the key with him. He had to pay for his stupidity. I am absolutely
> >> > positive that if you would have a chance to loot someone's house you will
> >> > do that without a doubght. Life of PK is not very good and simple compare
> >> > to regular players. It very dangeruos and non-plesuant, so don't you think
> >> > it suppose to be rewarded in some ways? :-)
> >>
> >>
> >> So ANYONE else in the game is an asshole to you? Interesting.
> >> So just how is someone supposed to get into their house without a key? Sure,
> >> he probably should recall to right outside his door, but maybe he likes to
> >> walk, thinking he might run into someone interesting to talk to on the way.
> >> Not the smartest thing to do, but I could understand that.
> >> By the way, I've actually been INVITED into others houses. Took me aback a
> >> bit, given that I could have just run and hidden, and come back into game when
> >> they weren't there, and looted them. Sure glad I didn't. So, no, not everyone
> >> is a looter.
> >>
> >> GL Glaeken
> >
> >Yes, everyone is an arsehole. Dreads of my guild are the only good pople
> >in the game for me.
>
> Projection and rationalization all rolled into one, amazing!
Happens sometimes, not all of PKs are KeWl DoOdS. But what are you really
amased with? Your ability to put two words that are not considered a part
of avearge person togather?
>
>
> >Ok, what skill do you use to make money in the game? Blacksmith? Tailor?
> >According to your monolog here it would be better for you to switch to
> >tinkering or veterinary. So other players would not be offended by your wealth,
> >because looting is making money and if you not looting, than you not
> >getting any of it. So your atempt for makeing me feel guilty for looting
> >just because you got the right personality and you don't loot is as stupid
> >as changing from tailoring to veterinary just to make other suffer less
> >because they are not smart enough to change their profession.
>
> Nobody said anything about offending someone else with your wealth. Try sticking with the argument.
No, no, no. The loot from the body of the dead emeny is my wealth and what
was suggested here was that it would be a good idea to give it to someone.
>
> >
> >So you can now enjoy thinking about how good you are same as those jerks
> >who always want to make everything looking politicaly correct.
>
> And you can enjoy thinking about all the people you killed, looted, and generally took advantage of just like those
> jerks who are always screwing over everyone around them for the slightest bit of gain.
> -Matt Miller>
Believe me I do.
James H. Banks
Wolfgang Artner wrote:
<snipped>
> This japanese guy brings me the New York tourist into mind,who wear
> his Rolex and big Nikon camera while walking around in the dangerouse
> parts of the city at night.
>
Yes, people are stupid and do that sort of thing too. But it still doesn't make it
right for someone to mug them and steal it all. Easy, yes. Right, no. Thats my
point. And I prefer to believe that 'morality' doesn't stop when you sit down at
your computer. Why cause someone mental duress just for some unreal personal gain?
If you challenged him, and he accepted, that would be different. just my opinion,
of course.
Keep in mind, many people WANT to play UO in a friendly 'players working together'
atmosphere as advertised on the box. Maybe they get away with a lot of the time,
thus becoming somewhat careless. Thats probably what happened here, if the story is
indeed true. I do find it hard to believe that the guy had his house key in a tent
chest....aren't those lockpickable? Or am I getting this story confused with
another one?
GL Glaeken - Lake Superior
> The Great Lord Alrik,The Adventurers Circle/Catskill
> ICQ 7171592
James H. Banks
Clinton wrote:
> Just because we feel for the victim doesn't make his attacker "wrong." UO
> was intended, in part, as a PvP arena, no?
Thats a big controversy...many people don't agree. Let me type a few phrases
direct from the Ultima Online Packaging:
"A world with spells and monsters. Quests and heroes. A living, growing
world...."
"Play solo or with as many friends as you wish."
"People from all over the world will join you in this exciting, high-fantasy
setting."
As I and many others have pointed out, not one word about pvp combat. You CANT
play solo....PKs don't allow that. Just my opinion, but OSI has misadvertised
the game.
> That makes what the attacker did
> completely acceptable. I find it atrocious, but also acceptable.
Again, it depends whether you consider walking out of town an implicit agreement
to do pvp combat whenever one or more PKs attack you. Gets back to the whole
issue of whether PK is appropriate in a game. Regardless, I still stand by my
opinion that PK and looting is not a moral act. If both sides agree to combat,
as in historic duels, then its acceptable. Otherwise, just murder, whether real
or cyber.
GL Glaeken
Wolfgang Artner
>
>
>Wolfgang Artner wrote:
><snipped>
>
>> This japanese guy brings me the New York tourist into mind,who wear
>> his Rolex and big Nikon camera while walking around in the dangerouse
>> parts of the city at night.
>>
>
>Yes, people are stupid and do that sort of thing too. But it still doesn't make it
>right for someone to mug them and steal it all. Easy, yes. Right, no. Thats my
>point. And I prefer to believe that 'morality' doesn't stop when you sit down at
>your computer. Why cause someone mental duress just for some unreal personal gain?
>If you challenged him, and he accepted, that would be different. just my opinion,
>of course.
My fault to bring a real life example into play.Of course became
robbed isn´t right no matter how easy it was made by the victim.
But I don´t unerstand how you can expect something like morality from
an evil UO character.The game allows that players kill others,that
players can take all the loot from your body.No this is of course not
morale,but it´s possible in the game so we have to handle it.And I
think the guy sitting in front of his computer and playing a really
nasty PK,can be a nice guy in real life.Again,from an evil UO
character I don´t expect something like morality.
>Keep in mind, many people WANT to play UO in a friendly 'players working together'
>atmosphere as advertised on the box. Maybe they get away with a lot of the time,
>thus becoming somewhat careless. Thats probably what happened here, if the story is
>indeed true. I do find it hard to believe that the guy had his house key in a tent
>chest....aren't those lockpickable? Or am I getting this story confused with
>another one?
I must admit I am one of the guys who thinks that PKing is the salt in
the soup in UO.Don´t missunderstand me.I was often very close to throw
my computer out of the window after beeing Pked at the mine with 1000
ingots in my bag.(ah 989 ingots,just 11 more then I go to bank
....OOooOOooo )
But I for my part like the risk of an ambush in the woods.
The feeling that behind the next tree could be a Dread Lord.I
understand that people are not interested in PvP combat.That they want
roleplay in peace,go wherever they want.But this game wasn´t designed
in that way as far as I can say.
So I would like to see more Anti PK actions in the game.Damn,all the
time when I hang around in a dungeon and 2 or 3 PK´s arrive all people
run away like magic arrows.They never think of fighting against
them.The miners in the mine at Trinsic are often killed by Pk´s.Most
oft the time its only 1 or 2 Pk´s.Tough yes,but you can beat
them.Sometimes I hang around there with some buddies of me,hidden.And
when a group of Pk´s ambushes the miners we attack them.Thats really
fun,especially when you see a Pk running.Of course we die
sometimes,who cares.We do something against them.Its boring waiting 3
hours or more before the action begins,but then...its pure fun.
Damn its 6 in the morning now and I can´t read the words in my english
dictonary anymore.Was I off topic :-))
Legion
On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 14:26:56 GMT, ro...@direct.ca (Ron Findling) wrote:
>> You are absolutely wrong here. You NEVER have to carry your key
>> around with you.
>
>Presumably because you just Recall to where your house is, right?
>
>Ever see the UO intro about how most people shunned magic because it
>could "corrupt the soul?"
>
>What if someone (God forbid) actually decided to roleplay this? Or
>just decided their idea of their character doesn't include them
>knowing any magic?
>
>I guess only mages should be allowed to own houses, then.
>
>Sigh.... :-(
Ohhhh, just made a mistake there friend. How can you assume I recall
to my house all of the time? I walk to my house the majority of the
time and guess what? I don't carry my key. Thanks for your
participation though. Monte, tell him what he has won.
Clinton
Damn good point you make about what the game is advertised as. I must say
that I lost my box long ago. However, I seem to remember always being aware
of a PvP element. But that may just have been wishful thinking. :-) I
sort of lost you toward the end, though.
Is PvP a part of UO (as desinged and advertised) or not?
If "not," then why go into the whole moral thing? I mean, it's certainly
not immoral for me to attack Australia in "Risk," even if the person
managing the armies in Australia has no intention of entering into conflict
with me. How, if PvP is designed into and a part of UO, could this be wrong
in any other game?
James H. Banks wrote in message <357DD4D7...@swbell.net>...
Clinton
So you've said. I (and I'm sure the OSI dev team) appreciate that you can
express yourself so completely. I sincerely hope that they take your (and
many of your like-minded compatriots') views into consideration.
As I understand you, you've somehow or another given UO special dispensation
so that it is exempt (in a way that no other game is) from being played
under its own terms. How is this possible? Just how do you justify (or
even rationalize) pretending that what you want from UO (what it "should"
be) is any more valid than what it already is? Please keep in mind that
we're talking about a game here. Not Nazi Germany or whatever other logical
extreme you may think it useful to carry this argument to.
BTW, do I sense some evasion on your part? I apologize if I do but I do not
feel that you satisfactorily answered my earlier question. Namely, in the
game "Risk," is it wrong for me to attack Australia if the person who's
pieces are occupying Australia has no intention of ever entering into
conflict with any of my pieces?
Dennis Heffernan wrote in message <6lkdco$5...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
Clinton
I almost forgot (sorry for the double post), I've adventured exclusively
solo since November and have been killed no more than 5 times, at least 2 of
those due to inopportune lost connections! Maybe I have a good connection
(but w/ a 28.8, is that possible?) and have an easier time outrunning the
PKers. I spend almost all my time in Deceit and Covetous, too so it's not
because I'm careful!
Matt Allan Miller
In article <6lmf8n$ko7$1...@ecuador.it.earthlink.net>,
"Clinton" <ccprossnos...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>So you've said. I (and I'm sure the OSI dev team) appreciate that you can
>express yourself so completely. I sincerely hope that they take your (and
>many of your like-minded compatriots') views into consideration.
>
>As I understand you, you've somehow or another given UO special dispensation
>so that it is exempt (in a way that no other game is) from being played
>under its own terms. How is this possible? Just how do you justify (or
>even rationalize) pretending that what you want from UO (what it "should"
>be) is any more valid than what it already is? Please keep in mind that
>we're talking about a game here. Not Nazi Germany or whatever other logical
>extreme you may think it useful to carry this argument to.
>
>BTW, do I sense some evasion on your part? I apologize if I do but I do not
>feel that you satisfactorily answered my earlier question. Namely, in the
>game "Risk," is it wrong for me to attack Australia if the person who's
>pieces are occupying Australia has no intention of ever entering into
>conflict with any of my pieces?
The difference is that UO is an open ended game. Risk has one goal, world domination. War and conflict are what Risk
is all about. UO is about whatever you make it. Massive groups of PKs pretty much negate most other styles of play.
-Matt Miller
>
>Dennis Heffernan wrote in message <6lkdco$5...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>>Clinton wrote in message <6lk030$9q2$1...@argentina.it.earthlink.net>...
>>|like it. I find it rather exciting. So what? The point is that this is
>>|what UO, at present, is.
>>
>>
>> No, the point is that it is not what UO, ever, should be.
>>
>>Dennis F. Heffernan UO: Venture (Catskills) df...@worldnet.att.net
>>Montclair State U #include <disclaim.h> ICQ:9154048 CompSci/Philosophy
>>"You bitch about the present and blame it on the past/I'd like to find your
>>inner child and kick its little ass!" - D. Henley/G. Frey, "Get Over It"
>>
>>
>
>
Clinton
Thank you, Matt, my point exactly.
Matt Allan Miller wrote in message
<6lmo0j$k...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>...
<snip>
>UO is about whatever you make it.
<snip>
>
-Matt Miller
>
James H. Banks
Roman Yazhbin wrote:
<snip>
Why you people always want to make yourself look like you are way smarter than me?
Does it make you feel good?hmmm....maybe I missed something in what I said. I didn't
think I was trying to do that. My apologies if I offended you in any way. I just
disagree strongly with what you said.
> <more snipping>
>
> Yes, everyone is an arsehole. Dreads of my guild are the only good pople
> in the game for me.
good because they kill and loot with you, and heal you when no other decent person
would? I guess that would make them 'good' for you. Not that it makes them or you
good people, though. I still can't see how you can call everyone else an 'arsehole'.
Pretty narrow minded, aren't you? Are all the people in your life 'arseholes'? I
can't believe that.
> Ok, what skill do you use to make money in the game? Blacksmith? Tailor?
> According to your monolog here it would be better for you to switch to
> tinkering or veterinary. So other players would not be offended by your wealth,
> because looting is making money and if you not looting, than you not
> getting any of it.
Since you ask, I'll answer. I starte out as a miner, both to make money, raise my
strength, and because I enjoyed talking with the people in the mines. Just preferred
that to logging. Have never tried tailoring. For the last couple months, I primarily
hunt in dungeons. I only take loot from my own kills, or kills I materially
participate in, or what others offer from their own kill because I healed them.
So far, the newbies that I take back to my house, and outfit with bone armor and a
sword, haven't acted offended by my 'wealth'. Maybe I'm not following you.
> So your atempt for makeing me feel guilty for looting
> just because you got the right personality and you don't loot is as stupid
> as changing from tailoring to veterinary just to make other suffer less
> because they are not smart enough to change their profession.
What you do, i.e, killing and looting other players, has nothing to do with what my
profession might be, or that of others. You made your own choice to be a PK. Game
allows it, so you do it. Apparently whether it upsets other people when you kill
them, doesn't have any impact on you. But then, all the PKs are like that.
>
>
> So you can now enjoy thinking about how good you are same as those jerks
> who always want to make everything looking politicaly correct.
you lost me again. I'm just one of the many blue characters in the game. Adamantly
against PKing, I wish it wasn't a part of the game, but I accept that it is. Things
could be done about it, but OSI is unwilling to upset the applecart beyone the new
patch coming out.
Ingot Head
Clinton wrote in message <6lmf8n$ko7$1...@ecuador.it.earthlink.net>...
>BTW, do I sense some evasion on your part? I apologize if I do but I do
not
>feel that you satisfactorily answered my earlier question. Namely, in the
>game "Risk," is it wrong for me to attack Australia if the person who's
>pieces are occupying Australia has no intention of ever entering into
>conflict with any of my pieces?
This is what we KEEP failing to get across to you. I'll say it again
though.
UO IS A ROLE PLAYING GAME!!!
The whole point of Risk is global domination. The reason you PLAY is
to wipe out everyone else. The person that enters into a treaty with you
understands that as well, and should be looking out for you to break
the contract.
UO is a completely different animal. When you play RISK, or Quake,
you are playing against other players. That's a full time job, but that's
okay, because that's what the game is about.
When playing UO, there is another complete dimension available.
It is very difficult to take advantage of it though, because those
people that don't or can't understand that other dimension are forcing
us to play like it was quake in self defense.
As far as OSI goes, they have stated that they were amazed at the
level of bloodshed and anti-social activity shown by the customers.
They agree that all the pking is too much, pvp was supposed to be
AN ASPECT of the game, not the entire thing. That is why they are
reworking the rep system.
Ingot Head
Clinton
Glad I don't play Risk with you! I feel that people who break treaties are
unethical and immoral and play counter to the strategic spirit of the game.
:-)
Bottom line(s):
UO is not life.
UO is a game (a sophisticated game with many player-defined "object(s)
of the game," but still a game).
PvP is a part of UO (i.e. PvP is not an exploit or a cheat or in any
other way a violation of the rules or the spirit of the game).
Direct your anger at OSI for allowing virtually unbridled PvP in their
game, not at those who participate in it.
It seems that you will get your way.
Ingot Head wrote in message ...
>
rend
In article <6ljq7u$k2b$1...@ecuador.it.earthlink.net>,
"Clinton" <ccprossnos...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> rend wrote in message <357D4DB6...@ames.net>...
> <snip>
> >I suppose the next thing Mortifera will say is "It's only a game. What
> >I do in the game doesn't represent what sort of person I am." UO gives
> >us choices in how we behave, and the choices we make does say much about
> >what sort of person we are. Many will deny this, because they don't
> >like what it says about themselves, but it's true. I'm not referring to
> >role-playing evil characters, I mean the "cheating, exploiting,
> >obnoxious, racist, greedy, selfish, etc" players that infest this
> >virtual world. The sort of people we avoid in the real world.
> So if he _was_ role-playing an evil character, what he did would have been
> okay with you?
No. It's not whether they role-play, it's whether they're an ass, it's
whether they add to or detract from the game. If I wouldn't want to be
around you and your behavior in real life, I wouldn't want to be around
you and your behavior in-game, whether you're role-playing or not. This
is the key, and it's quite simple.
> Wouldn't a role-playing evil character necessarily _have_ to be greedy and
> selfish?
NO! Evil characters can love, not just hate. They can be generous and
kind, not just greedy and selfish. You've read too much bad literature
and seen too much tv. Try some of the classics. Bad characterizations
are shallow and one-dimensional, good characterizations are complex and
multi-dimensional.
A good example in the UO genre (swords and sorcery) is The Black Company
books, by Glen Cook. There was, and may still be, a UO guild based upon
them. Every so often I see a "Croaker" or a "Dorotea Senjak", both are
characters from the series. Dorotea is The Lady, an evil demi-god out
of history, put down a long time ago with her hubby The Dominator, and
the Ten Who Were Taken. The Lady and the Ten have risen again (darn
that Bomanz!), and are spreading their evil once more. The "good guys"
in the series are The Black Company, mercenaries with a 400 year history
of being the best. The Company against the World. These "good guys"
aren't really good, they're cut-throats, murderers, etc., but they end
up in the role of "good guys". Can rapists and murderers and looters be
"good guys" too? Read the books.
The Lady's evil (she was one of the Great Evils of the Age) also isn't
clear-cut. The books explore these concepts. The Lady is responsible
for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and she controls the Ten, who
are only slightly less evil than her. However, she's doing it to
prevent the return of her hubby, who's evil is an order of magnitude
above hers. Somewhere in the series the Lady sacrifices much to stop
him. She doesn't have to, she ruled with him before they were all put
down, but she does none-the-less. Because of her sacrifice, he doesn't
return, and she loses all that she had. So, was she evil, or not?
There's no easy answer.
The above evil is complex and multi-dimensional, and I haven't even
gotten into the history of the Black Company themselves, and how it
compares with their current situation in the books.
The evil role-playing you describe is just someone being a
one-dimensional selfish ass.
In real life killing another is wrong and evil, but police or soldiers
killing in the line of duty are heroes. It's not what you do so much as
why you do it, and how you do it.
> Aren't we _all_ selfish anyway? Just because your compensation comes in the
> form of warm and fuzzy feelings doesn't make you any less selfish.
Selfishness is seeking your pleasure irregardless of the effect on
others. If what you're doing is fine with all concerned, that's not
selfish, no matter how much you enjoy it. Why? Because you've taken
their wishes into account. You've included them and their wants into
your play. To not include the wants of the others you interact with is
selfish. And it's real easy in UO to consider the wants of the _people_
you interact with.
> BTW, and I am _not_ making this up, it really is a game. Really. More
> complex, more detailed and more involved than many other games, yes, but no
> less a game for all of that.
That it's a game is irrelevent. Really. What's important is that
you're dealing with other people. If you were just playing a game
against a computer, then your point would be valid, because you'd be the
only person. When others are concerned, things change. I'm not making
this up. Really.
Do you really not understand this, or are you just being obtuse? These
are things I was taught as a child, as were my friends, and those who I
enjoy spending time with. If you wish to be a pariah, at least have the
decency to stop this pretense that you're adding to the game, that
you're being more than just an ass, that it's "just a game".
A friend's grandmother used to tell her that the reason she (the
grandmother) disciplined her (my friend) was so that other people would
like her (my friend). Didn't your grandmother want others to like you?
rend
Alex Le Heux
Jonathan Aitken wrote:
> Because a person on a T1 can defeat or outrun the vast majority of people.
> Similarly, most Americans have a large advantage against non-US people - and the
> game was sold internationally, so lets not go there.
This is bull: I'm in the Netherlands, 17 hops from chesapeake.owo.com,
play with two
or even three people over a single 33k6 line on a P-133, and I still
outrun everyone.
Often even people on horseback.
Alex
--
Hanno: Alex! Wat doe je nou? Hou op!
Clinton
rend <xre...@ames.net> wrote in article <3581CF68...@ames.net>...
<snip>
> No. It's not whether they role-play, it's whether they're an ass, it's
> whether they add to or detract from the game. If I wouldn't want to be
> around you and your behavior in real life, I wouldn't want to be around
> you and your behavior in-game, whether you're role-playing or not. This
> is the key, and it's quite simple.
[Clinton]
Except that this condition is too subjective to do anyone much good. How
will anyone know whether they are adding to *your* game experience or not?
That is what I see as the real function of role-playing. It gives everyone
a fairly objective standard by which to measure their own in-game behavior
against.
[rend]
> NO! Evil characters can love, not just hate. They can be generous and
> kind, not just greedy and selfish. You've read too much bad literature
> and seen too much tv. Try some of the classics. Bad characterizations
> are shallow and one-dimensional, good characterizations are complex and
> multi-dimensional.
>
<snipped a good example of varying shades of good/evil>
>
> The evil role-playing you describe is just someone being a
> one-dimensional selfish ass.
[Clinton]
I described a simple fact of human existence. We all live to maximize our
own happiness. If you see this as one-dimensional then you simply haven't
considered the multitude of ways this selfishness can present itself (i.e.
altruism, valor, thievery, murder...the entire range of human expression).
[rend]
> In real life killing another is wrong and evil, but police or soldiers
> killing in the line of duty are heroes. It's not what you do so much as
> why you do it, and how you do it.
[Clinton]
Ethical relativism? Shame on you! The road to hell, after all, is paved
with good intentions.
[rend]
> Selfishness is seeking your pleasure irregardless of the effect on
> others. If what you're doing is fine with all concerned, that's not
> selfish, no matter how much you enjoy it. Why? Because you've taken
> their wishes into account. You've included them and their wants into
> your play. To not include the wants of the others you interact with is
> selfish. And it's real easy in UO to consider the wants of the _people_
> you interact with.
[Clinton]
This is a fallacious distinction. Selfishness *must* take into account the
effect your actions have on others because how you affect others affects
your happiness. Mother Theresa was justly applauded thousands of times for
her good works and unjustly applauded for her selflessness. She usually
replied that she was not selfless. All the starving people of the world
reminded her of Jesus. She loved Jesus. Therefore, she did whatever she
could to help ease their suffering. She did not have to ignore what she
wanted out of life in order to help others, because that is what she wanted
out of life!
[rend]
> That it's a game is irrelevent. Really. What's important is that
> you're dealing with other people. If you were just playing a game
> against a computer, then your point would be valid, because you'd be the
> only person. When others are concerned, things change. I'm not making
> this up. Really.
[Clinton]
As I've said a ba-jillion times, there is a big distinction between life
and a game. That you are unwilling to consider this distinction does not
mean it doesn't exist. Granted, UO's status as an RPG does elevate the
options available to its players over the options available to the players
of, say, Parcheesi. But as long as PvP is within the framework of the game
it cannot be said to be wrong to engage in it. Just like Parcheesi,
however, one can expect a certain level of civility from one's fellow
players. Rudeness and poor sportsmanship have no place in any game. This
would seem to be a universal maxim of all game-play. It is also supremely
selfish. If you act like a jerk, no one will play with you.
[rend]
> Do you really not understand this, or are you just being obtuse? These
> are things I was taught as a child, as were my friends, and those who I
> enjoy spending time with. If you wish to be a pariah, at least have the
> decency to stop this pretense that you're adding to the game, that
> you're being more than just an ass, that it's "just a game".
[Clinton]
Okay, now I think you're just being mean. I simply support the freedom to
choose the options that OSI has built into their game. I would prefer it
if people role-played, that they didn't loot and that they were civil to
one another. But those are *my* choices, and not for me to thrust on
another player. You were probably taught the same crap we all were as
children, that it's somehow good to put the needs of others above our own.
As if we could somehow know what's best for others more than we know what's
best for ourselves.
[rend]
> A friend's grandmother used to tell her that the reason she (the
> grandmother) disciplined her (my friend) was so that other people would
> like her (my friend). Didn't your grandmother want others to like you?
>
> rend
[Clinton]
My grandmother wanted me to be a free-thinking individual who never let the
will of others *necessarily* determine the course of my life. As Ayn Rand
wrote, "I shall never live for the sake of any man, nor ask any man to live
for mine."
Dennis Heffernan
Clinton wrote in message <6lmf8n$ko7$1...@ecuador.it.earthlink.net>...
|As I understand you, you've somehow or another given UO special dispensation
|so that it is exempt (in a way that no other game is) from being played
|under its own terms.
I have only pointed out that those terms do not transcend the consensual
ethical norms of contemporary society. The mere availability of PvP combat
does not justify every possible use of that option.
|BTW, do I sense some evasion on your part? I apologize if I do but I do not
|feel that you satisfactorily answered my earlier question. Namely, in the
|game "Risk," is it wrong for me to attack Australia if the person who's
|pieces are occupying Australia has no intention of ever entering into
|conflict with any of my pieces?
Your comparison is invalid, because Risk is a traditional game with
very clear victory conditions and very limited means of which to pursue
them, while UO is an open-ended RPG. It is not possible to win Risk
without attacking the other players. It is possible to have an enjoyable
experience in UO without attacking or harassing other players.
Dennis Heffernan
Clinton wrote in message <01bd96dd$83a04720$598f2499@oemcomputer>...
|This is a fallacious distinction. Selfishness *must* take into account the
|effect your actions have on others because how you affect others affects
|your happiness. Mother Theresa was justly applauded thousands of times for
|her good works and unjustly applauded for her selflessness. She usually
|replied that she was not selfless. All the starving people of the world
|reminded her of Jesus. She loved Jesus. Therefore, she did whatever she
|could to help ease their suffering. She did not have to ignore what she
|wanted out of life in order to help others, because that is what she wanted
|out of life!
This puts Mother Theresa on the same ethical plane as Adolf Hitler.
I submit that this makes your ethical system worthless.
|As I've said a ba-jillion times, there is a big distinction between life
|and a game. That you are unwilling to consider this distinction does not
|mean it doesn't exist.
That you draw this distinction does not mean it exists, either.
Games are a part of life. What you do to another person in a game is
still a dealing with another human being, and thus speaks to who you are.
If you'll screw people for a game, you'll screw them in "real life" too.
|of, say, Parcheesi. But as long as PvP is within the framework of the game
|it cannot be said to be wrong to engage in it.
Yes, it can. The availability of the option does not justify the option,
any more than the availability of murder in RL justifies murder.
You could "PK" in any face-to-face RPG. Some people do. They are not
invited to the next session, as a rule.
|My grandmother wanted me to be a free-thinking individual who never let the
|will of others *necessarily* determine the course of my life. As Ayn Rand
|wrote, "I shall never live for the sake of any man, nor ask any man to live
|for mine."
Oh goodie, a Randroid. Why didn't you say so in the first place? I
was right; your ethical system _is_ useless.
Clinton
You have expressed it perfectly. "Selfless" means "without self."
"Selfish" means "of the self." Anyone acting with no consciousness of
themselves is truly selfless. Those who are aware of who they are, what
they want and what their conscious mind can achieve (no matter the result)
are truly selfish. Glad you could help clear that up!
You can insult people all you want but it doesn't make you any smarter.
rend wrote in message <35869F17...@ames.net>...
>You're wasting your breath (or electrons, here on the net ;), Dennis,
>he's not worth responding to anymore, on this topic. Clinton believes
>that a selfless act, like helping another, is selfish, because the doer
>derives satisfaction from helping others.
>
>A great example of the danger of knowledge without wisdom.
>
>If helping another is selfish, then is harming another selfless? After
>all, harming another allows someone else to help the harmed, so is the
>harmer selfless for giving the helper the chance to help? But then
>again, the helper really is being selfish, so can the harmer be selfless
>for letting the helper be selfish?
>
>By Clinton's logic the only selfless person is someone who helps but
>doesn't derive satisfaction from the deed, such as a no-conscious pker.
>A no-conscious pker gives a helper a chance to help the victim, and the
>pker doesn't enjoy helping anyone, so the pker isn't being selfish. So
>no-conscious pkers must be selfless, while someone who helps the victim
>is selfish. (The preceeding shows the results of applying knowledge
>without wisdom)
>
>rend
>You can lead a person to knowledge, but you can't make them think...
Dennis Heffernan
Legion wrote in message <35917d60....@news.supernews.com>...
|It would have been better if you said, "It is possible for ME to have
|an enjoyable experience in UO without attacking or harassing other
|players." You made a value judgement that does not hold true
|necessarily for anyone but you.
No, I made a logical statement: "It does not derive a contradiction
to have an enjoyable experience in UO without attacking or harassing
other players." Values have nothing to do with it.
Dennis Heffernan
Clinton wrote in message <6mc3ol$m7b$1...@ecuador.it.earthlink.net>...
|You have expressed it perfectly. "Selfless" means "without self."
|"Selfish" means "of the self." Anyone acting with no consciousness of
No, "selfless" means "acting without concern for the actor's best
interests", and "selfish" means "acting with primary or sole concern for
the actor's best interests". Most people, most of the time, fall somewhere
in-between those two extremes.
By your definintions, no one can be selfless and all people are selfish,
which makes both words 100% useless.
Clinton
You are right. They are useless in any description of reality. However,
they are still useful because many people do not recognize the reality of
human motivation. To call any conscious actor "selfish" is redundant. The
rather Freidman-esque point I wanted to make is simple that everyony acts in
their own best interest and they do so all the time. Their perceptions
about what is in their best interest may change, but the core motivation
does not.
Dennis Heffernan wrote in message <6mm0eh$p...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
rend
Clinton wrote:
>
> You are right. They are useless in any description of reality. However,
> they are still useful because many people do not recognize the reality of
> human motivation.
I assume you consider yourself someone who recognizes "...the reality of
human motivation."? Then why do you constantly reduce human behavior,
which is complex and multi-dimensional, to a simple, one-dimensional
description and motivation? You say "its only a game". It is a game,
but it's not "only" a game, it's more than a game. It's entertainment,
it's competition, it's cooperation, it's a social event, etc. You also
say that selfless acts are selfish because the doer derives satisfaction
from the act. Is that the only reason one performs a selfless act?
What about duty, love, responsibility, fear, fame, ego, etc.? Are they
not also reasons one performs selfless acts? Yet you so conveniently
ignore those reasons to make some meaningless point, in some show of
Freshman Filosophy (yes, philosophy isn't spelled with a F). Again, a
great example of knowledge without the wisdom to properly apply the
knowledge (yes I'm being mean to you again).
Your reducing our complex human behavior to a single simplistic
motivation allows you to conviently ignore the repurcussions of your
anti-social behavior, and even allows you to feel good about it. By
your philosophy you can profit from being a jerk in-game without suffing
pangs of conscience ("Why treat others considerately in-game, it's only
a game"). In real life you don't have to risk yourself to help someone
in need, and you can even pat yourself on the back for your inaction
because you resisted the urge to be selfish ("Why do a selfless act, it
would just be selfish").
You can't pick and choose a single, simple motivation from among all
relevant motivations, just to suit your convenience, and justify your
desires.
rend
Dennis Heffernan
Clinton wrote in message <6mm1m6$9q0$1...@bolivia.it.earthlink.net>...
|You are right. They are useless in any description of reality. However,
|they are still useful because many people do not recognize the reality of
|rather Freidman-esque point I wanted to make is simple that everyony acts in
|their own best interest and they do so all the time. Their perceptions
|about what is in their best interest may change, but the core motivation
|does not.
To which I say, "unbelieveable bullshit".
Someone who jumps into a freezing-cold river to save a total stranger
from drowning is _not_ acting in his own best interests. For that matter,
every time I don't push an old lady out of my way on the street I'm not
acting in my own best interests. I'm wasting time by not pushing her out
of my way and there would be no consequences for doing it.
It is, of course, possible to define self-interest in such ridiculously
broad terms so as to include every action a moral agent could possibly take.
It is also possible to define morality as accordance with Catholic doctrine
(or Protestant or Jewish or Islamic or Satanist for that matter). But in
the words of my best friend's former partner, you can glue feathers on a rat
but that won't make it a swan.
Dennis F. Heffernan UO: Venture (Catskills) Dennis.H...@gte.net
Clinton
Dennis Heffernan wrote in message <6n7144$7...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>Clinton wrote in message <6mm1m6$9q0$1...@bolivia.it.earthlink.net>...
>|You are right. They are useless in any description of reality. However,
>|they are still useful because many people do not recognize the reality of
>|human motivation. To call any conscious actor "selfish" is redundant.
The
>|rather Freidman-esque point I wanted to make is simple that everyony acts
in
>|their own best interest and they do so all the time. Their perceptions
>|about what is in their best interest may change, but the core motivation
>|does not.
>
> To which I say, "unbelieveable bullshit".
>
> Someone who jumps into a freezing-cold river to save a total stranger
>from drowning is _not_ acting in his own best interests.
Yes they are. For whatever reason, from the hero's perspective, their
life-threatening action is in perfect alignment with what they want, or they
wouldn't do it. I've heard from evolutionary biologists that altruism is
genetic, it is a chemical reward system in our brain's hard-wiring that
makes us feel good when we help others or even consider helping others.
Does this make people who jump into freezing rivers any less heroic? Not at
all. It simply de-saints the do-gooders and undemonizes the "monsters."
>For that matter,
>every time I don't push an old lady out of my way on the street I'm not
>acting in my own best interests. I'm wasting time by not pushing her out
>of my way and there would be no consequences for doing it.
Yes, there would be consequences. You would feel bad, lose sleep, throw up,
etc. You don't have to restrain yourself from harming others (do you?)
because you know from related experience and/or genetic coding that you
don't like to cause other people pain. Hurting others makes you feel worse
(i.e. the cost you pay) than any value you might receive from doing so (i.e.
the benefit you receive).
>
> It is, of course, possible to define self-interest in such ridiculously
>broad terms so as to include every action a moral agent could possibly
take.
It is quite useful to look at the motivation behind behavior and even more
useful to realize that, from the actor's immediate perception, their
behavior is in their best interest. This is of immense value to therapists,
police, teachers...indeed, anyone affected by the behavior of others. The
serial-killer feeds his demons with what seems to us like irrational
behavior. Inside his warped mind, however, killing innocents makes perfect
sense. This is a much more useful perspective to take when trying to catch
or treat such people.
>It is also possible to define morality as accordance with Catholic doctrine
>(or Protestant or Jewish or Islamic or Satanist for that matter). But in
>the words of my best friend's former partner, you can glue feathers on a
rat
>but that won't make it a swan.
>
I appreciate the slam against religion, but must point out that Milton
Freidman is probably not burying his Nobel Prize in the back yard to protect
its being stripped away because you happen to disagree with the concept that
every decision we make is designed to maximize our reward.
Dennis F. Heffernan
Clinton wrote in message <6n8ani$jud$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
|Yes they are. For whatever reason, from the hero's perspective, their
|life-threatening action is in perfect alignment with what they want, or they
|wouldn't do it.
That's a) a tautology, and thus devoid of content, and b) still bullshit.
If I point a gun at your head and say "your money or your life" and you give
me the money, then you are just doing what you want so I'm not doing anything
wrong.
People do things they don't want to do all the time.
|I've heard from evolutionary biologists that altruism is
|genetic, it is a chemical reward system in our brain's hard-wiring that
|makes us feel good when we help others or even consider helping others.
It's nonsense. People have to be taught altruistic behavior. It
doesn't manifest in feral humans.
|Does this make people who jump into freezing rivers any less heroic?
Yes, it does. If he's just doing what he wants to do then he's no
different from other people who are just doing what they want to do.
|Yes, there would be consequences. You would feel bad, lose sleep, throw up,
|etc.
No, I wouldn't. I've hurt people in the past and it had no such effect
on me.
|You don't have to restrain yourself from harming others (do you?)
Everyone does. Conscience is another social construct.
|It is quite useful to look at the motivation behind behavior and even more
|useful to realize that, from the actor's immediate perception, their
|behavior is in their best interest.
You're just defining it that way, and that doesn't make it true.
|police, teachers...indeed, anyone affected by the behavior of others. The
|serial-killer feeds his demons with what seems to us like irrational
|behavior. Inside his warped mind, however, killing innocents makes perfect
|sense.
No, it doesn't. Someone with a biochemical imbalance that drives them to
deviant behavior does not want to commit that behavior in any meaningful sense
of the word "want", but he will do it anyway.
|I appreciate the slam against religion, but must point out that Milton
|Freidman is probably not burying his Nobel Prize in the back yard to protect
|its being stripped away because you happen to disagree with the concept that
|every decision we make is designed to maximize our reward.
There _is_ no reward for altruistic behavior. _That's what the
word means._
As for Friedman...you mean this guy? (From Encarta:)
> Friedman, Milton (1912- ), American economist and Nobel laureate.
>Friedman was born in New York City and educated at Rutgers University and the
>University of Chicago. He worked as an economist with various federal agencies
>in Washington, D.C., from 1935 to 1940 and from 1941 to 1943. In 1946 he joined
>the economics department at the University of Chicago. He is considered a leading
>protagonist of the economic theory that free market forces, rather than increased
>government intervention, can most effectively produce a balanced and noninflationary
>rate of economic growth. He is the outstanding exponent of the policy that the
>Federal Reserve System can best promote economic stability by increasing the
>supply of money at a fairly fixed rate instead of sharply expanding or contracting
>it.
> Friedman was awarded the 1976 Nobel Prize in economics for "his achievements
>in the fields of consumption analysis, monetary history and theory, and for his
>demonstration of the complexity of stabilization policy." Among his books are
>Capitalism and Freedom (1962), A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960
>(1963), Dollars and Deficits (1968), A Theoretical Framework for Monetary Analysis
>(1971), and Free to Choose (1980), the latter written with his wife, Rose Friedman.
>"Friedman, Milton," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 98 Encyclopedia.
>(c) 1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Aside from the fact that he's not just a fucking economist but a fucking UoC
economist, and aside from the fact that economics is not even a valid field of
study in the first place, and aside from the fact that having a Nobel Prize does
not mean that someone is right (and I'm amazed that they even give one for as
nonsensical a field as economics), there is the fact that this entire discussion
is totally outside of the man's field of expertise and he is therefore not a
viable source.
This confirms my earlier pronouncement: you are a typical Randroid. Your
entire case is built on axiomatic grounds, stretching the definitions of key
terms far past their breaking points. It has no basis in reality; it has no
basis in the actual behavior of real human beings. And it concludes any effort
on my part to engage you in any kind of meaningful discussion, as you clearly
do not live in the real world.
[plonk]