Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5753167" data-attributes="member: 8835">I forget if I covered this here, or another thread, but your point plays into it.Generally speaking, every players gets free admittance into the group.  As such, this bypasses the "normal" security check a group would do with an NPC.  You wouldn't let an NPC into the group who is going to bully you.  So when a player brings behaves in a way that violates this OOC trust.  It also puts them in a social quandary of not liking the behavior, but not wanting to confront the player.Mark's point is why I generally advocate the group agreeing to behave a certain way (be good guys) because it then avoids this problem. Player vs. player conflict can get out of hand.Now the OP attacked an NPC.  [MENTION=5202]SSquirrel[/MENTION] seemed to think that was fine, because it was an NPC.  Properly role-played, an NPC and PC should not be differentiated.  So of a group of 10 people, 5 are NPCs and 5 are PCs, when RR kills one, the reaction of each character should be comparable.So when RR killed somebody, each NPC and PC should be wondering "will I be next?" Especially because none of them were already aligned with RR's way of doing things.    The next time RR needs more bait, he's going to pick somebody and just do it.  He will never sacrifice himself, because that kind of guy wouldn't be sacrificing others first.If you play it that it's OK for RR to kill NPCs and use OOC that he won't hurt PCs, that's equally unrealistic, if not more so that controlling PC behavior by group agreement to not cause PCvParty conflict.</blockquote>

Verification